Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton

ByBig Pink

Podcast Episode 4 – Turnbull Hutton

 

Turnbull Hutton

Turnbull Huttonis 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 🙂

Podcast Download Link

ITunes Link

 

 

About the author

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

738 Comments so far

scottcPosted on11:21 am - May 7, 2014


… and of course, the post posts before I finish and I can no longer edit.

The phrase in question positted that when presented with a bovine posterior, Mr Miller would fail to connect using a stringed instrument as a weapon

View Comment

Kilgore TroutPosted on11:30 am - May 7, 2014


Ecobhoy @ 11

View Comment

Kilgore TroutPosted on11:33 am - May 7, 2014


Ecobhoy @ 11:18

And, of course, for the benefit of those who have not twigged.
If you prefix this brave Information Seeker’s name with ‘Big’ you get a better insight into his true character.

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on12:31 pm - May 7, 2014


nowoldandgrumpy says:
May 7, 2014 at 11:01 am

£6k per week for Kenny Millar, using the King equivalence of £350 per season ticket, equals 891 season tickets.

A bargain 🙄

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on12:39 pm - May 7, 2014


No1 Bob says:
May 7, 2014 at 12:31 pm

0

0

Rate This

nowoldandgrumpy says:
May 7, 2014 at 11:01 am

£6k per week for Kenny Millar, using the King equivalence of £350 per season ticket, equals 891 season tickets.

A bargain 🙄

________________________________________

… If only DK and the UoF could be persuaded to take security over Kenny Miller in exchange for for the season Ticket money… 😆

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on12:57 pm - May 7, 2014


No1 Bob says:
May 7, 2014 at 12:31 pm

nowoldandgrumpy says:
May 7, 2014 at 11:01 am

£6k per week for Kenny Millar, using the King equivalence of £350 per season ticket, equals 891 season tickets.
_____________________

A few years ago I was playing poker at a Glasgow casino when Kenny Miller was spotted walking in to play roulette. There ensued a very amusing conversation between 3 or 4 Celtic and Rangers fans at the table, who seemed to be having a competition to insult him, words such as Judas, cr@p, etc., until they started to get into his personal life at which point, a large and quite scary individual who had been sitting quietly between these “fans” piped up,

“Would you guys mind, he’s up here to marry my sister and this is his stag do…”

It was a nice quiet game after that. 😛

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on1:14 pm - May 7, 2014


No1 Bob says:
May 7, 2014 at 12:31 pm
0 0 Rate This
£6k per week for Kenny Millar, using the King equivalence of £350 per season ticket, equals 891 season tickets.

A bargain

I beg to differ much like Sevco’s predecessor you have forgotten that the 1st sixth of that should be forwarded to Her Majesty’s Revenue. I make it 1070 tickets and thats’ before one of the other things the predecessor forgot to pass on, Employers NICs, and then of course any bonus he must be due given the culture at Sevco 😉

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on1:26 pm - May 7, 2014


No1 Bob says:
May 7, 2014 at 12:31 pm

On reflection it is more likely that Kenny is on £6000 NET per week.

In this case that is equivalent to 1,495 season tickets which is a better indication of Kenny’s abilities 😯

tykebhoy says:
May 7, 2014 at 1:14 pm

I don’t think I would offer him 1 ticket’s worth.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on1:37 pm - May 7, 2014


I find the idea that Kenny Millar can still command £6k a week anywhere, at the age of 34, simply amazing. I believe he has scored something like 3 goals in his last 34 games for Vancouver. Is he going to get better with time, like a fine wine? Doubt it. If this is true, it just sums up McCoist as a manager for me. Useless.

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on2:01 pm - May 7, 2014


One question that popped into my head concerning Imran’s court case yesterday, if RIFC/TRFC does have an insolvency event within the next couple of months (or merely before IA’s case comes to court), is there any recourse available to IA concerning what would be shown to be possibly perjurous statements made in court?

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on2:08 pm - May 7, 2014


If Kenny Miller is about to sign for Rangers then it explains the ire from fans of the Vancouver club (someone posted about this a few days ago).

Kenny was supposedly released from his contract early by mutual consent so he could take a break from the game before deciding what was next for him.

Might Vancouver fans may feel he was lying out of his backside with that explanation for quitting the club while still under contract…

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on2:12 pm - May 7, 2014


Would the release of Andy Little and Chris Hegarty cover the new wage for Kenny Miller?

As someone else pointed out dunping hungry young players and replacing them with a squad of has beens looking for a nice final pay packet is not going to build a team to challenge should TRFC get promoted into the Premiership. Miller would be 35 by then assuming they went straight up.

View Comment

joe millers shortsPosted on2:15 pm - May 7, 2014


When calculating numbers of season tickets to be sold to pay for Kenny Miller do not forget about VAT. But then again…

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:18 pm - May 7, 2014


neepheid says:
May 7, 2014 at 1:37 pm

I find the idea that Kenny Millar can still command £6k a week anywhere, at the age of 34, simply amazing. I believe he has scored something like 3 goals in his last 34 games for Vancouver. Is he going to get better with time, like a fine wine? Doubt it. If this is true, it just sums up McCoist as a manager for me. Useless.
===============================
If McCoist signs him then it will soon become obvious whether McCoist’s managerial ability has improved or remains as is. I have my own ideas but quite honestly I couldn’t care less.

Perhaps Rangers are going for a new world record in the shape of the oldest player to lift the Champions League Cup. As to playing in it he’ll firstly need to beat Davie Weir’s record of being 40 years and 212 days of age against Bursaspor in December 2010.

Interestingly in the 1-all away group stage draw Kenny Miller scored for Rangers. So perhaps he truly is the Rangers secret weapon for The European Journey 😆

View Comment

TSFMPosted on2:20 pm - May 7, 2014


Just a reminder for those who missed it last night – Big Pink’s Podcast mugs
http://www.tsfm.net/podcast-mugs/

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:23 pm - May 7, 2014


Matty Roth says:
May 7, 2014 at 2:08 pm

If Kenny Miller is about to sign for Rangers then it explains the ire from fans of the Vancouver club (someone posted about this a few days ago).

Kenny was supposedly released from his contract early by mutual consent so he could take a break from the game before deciding what was next for him.

Might Vancouver fans may feel he was lying out of his backside with that explanation for quitting the club while still under contract…
==============================
In view of his woeful goal scoring record I think they would have been dancing in the streets and wishing he had gone at least a year ago 😈

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:31 pm - May 7, 2014


Para Handy says:
May 7, 2014 at 2:01 pm

One question that popped into my head concerning Imran’s court case yesterday, if RIFC/TRFC does have an insolvency event within the next couple of months (or merely before IA’s case comes to court), is there any recourse available to IA concerning what would be shown to be possibly perjurous statements made in court?
===============================
Be worth waiting to see John Clark’s coverage of what the Rangers Brief said. But I would say that I really very much doubt if any action could or would be taken. As long as any statements made had a possibility of success that’s enough IMO.

Rangers, in a sense, are at the mercy of matters beyond their control which could have a seriously adverse effect on their finances. But they are not alone in this as it’s part of the economics faced by a helluva lot of football clubs.

However it will be interesting to see what John has to say which might make things clearer.

View Comment

sickofitallPosted on2:39 pm - May 7, 2014


City of London source just told me to expect RIFC Directors to be buying small amounts of shares as a confidence boosting effort.
2:25pm – 7 May 14

View Comment

sickofitallPosted on2:40 pm - May 7, 2014


The above from phil

View Comment

mungoboyPosted on2:45 pm - May 7, 2014


Interesting post from Ecobhoy re the mysterious ‘Joe Canoe’ and his efforts re Freedom of Information requests.
I really do hope that Mr Canoe doesn’t find himself up some faecal tributary minus means of propulsion!

View Comment

McCaig`s TowerPosted on3:00 pm - May 7, 2014


sickofitall says:

May 7, 2014 at 2:39 pm

City of London source just told me to expect RIFC Directors to be buying small amounts of shares as a confidence boosting effort.
2:25pm – 7 May 14
——————————————————————
David Somers has bought 35k at about 24p ps Price up 2p in thin trading

View Comment

JLeeHookerPosted on3:08 pm - May 7, 2014


sickofitall says:
May 7, 2014 at 2:39 pm

City of London source just told me to expect RIFC Directors to be buying small amounts of shares as a confidence boosting effort.

He wasn’t wrong:

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11945346

View Comment

loamfeetPosted on3:28 pm - May 7, 2014


Is it just me or is ‘Joe Canoe’ homophonic with ‘Jock Knew’? Maybe everybody has noticed and I am slow to catch on …

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on3:31 pm - May 7, 2014


McCaig`s Tower says:
May 7, 2014 at 3:00 pm
3 0 Rate This

sickofitall says:

May 7, 2014 at 2:39 pm

City of London source just told me to expect RIFC Directors to be buying small amounts of shares as a confidence boosting effort.
2:25pm – 7 May 14
——————————————————————
David Somers has bought 35k at about 24p ps Price up 2p in thin trading
—————–

Considering how much they’re getting paid by the club … er … company, it’s not a lot of money ‘invested’.

Whose confidence are they boosting?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:50 pm - May 7, 2014


Per PMacG’s latest post, where Monday evening’s TRFC/RIFC Emergency meeting with key players also covered liquidation…

If this was a business journalist reporting in a newspaper – perhaps after receiving a “No comment” from the club/business – would TRFC not be obligated to issue a denial statement via AIM ?

Are there different rules if it’s reported by an accredited journalist online only ?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on3:52 pm - May 7, 2014


From http://www.allmediascotland.com/broadcasting/64667/your-noon-briefing-33/

THE chief football writer at the Sunday Mail is leaving the paper, after almost 20 years there.

Mark Guidi joined the Sunday Mail in 1995, becoming chief football writer around about five years later.

The men’s football Scottish Cup final, a week on Saturday, will be his last assignment in the role.

He has taken a voluntary redundancy package; it’s understood he has no firm plans for the future.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on4:04 pm - May 7, 2014


In the proceedings yesterday, was there not a statement by Alan Summers QC (reading a statement from the NOMAD) (to bolster the view that all was well) that the share price had “rebounded satisfactorily”. At the time it seemed a bit odd (as I wasn’t aware that it had “rebounded” anywhere).

Then today the share price goes up a wee bit because one of the directors makes it go up by buying shares. Up until that point, the share price had only moved downwards since the middle of March.

Nice work.

Maybe they got the timing wrong by 24 hours.

Remember, even dead cats bounce.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on4:11 pm - May 7, 2014


StevieBC says:
May 7, 2014 at 3:50 pm
I regularly put in media questions to TRFC press Office.
I never get an answer.
I often publish those questions on my site to show people what has been asked of TRFC

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on4:26 pm - May 7, 2014


neepheid says:
May 7, 2014 at 3:52 pm

THE chief football writer at the Sunday Mail is leaving the paper, after almost 20 years there. Mark Guidi joined the Sunday Mail in 1995, becoming chief football writer around about five years later. The men’s football Scottish Cup final, a week on Saturday, will be his last assignment in the role.

He has taken a voluntary redundancy package; it’s understood he has no firm plans for the future.
=======================================
Sign of the times and more will be joining him if what I heard is true that enhanced vol redundo is open to all staff and next time it could well be statutory minimum.

Same with all the papers – they are dying and the demise is accelerating. I do know some good journos and for them I feel sorry but most of them saw quite some time ago where things were going and headed-off.

The last throw of the dice is their online presence but I just don’t think their output is good enough to match the independent opposition that’s starting to appear in all sorts of places.

It’s the death of a once-proud industry and it’s going out with barely a whimper from the cost-cutting yes-men who cut quality to save costs and banked their fabulous bonuses. They were rewarded on the bottom line and circulation was no longer seen to have any importance.

It was your classic accountants solution and when there were no more costs to be cut the game was a bogey because no one was buying the useless product and it was too late to do anything about it.

The final nail in the coffin was when newsprint was no longer used to wrap fish suppers because of the carcinogenic dangers of ink. The product truly had no further use other than as a vehicle to carry the succulent lamb messages 🙁

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:45 pm - May 7, 2014


Imran Ahmad case continued

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

[ My fellow- poster (I did not seek his permission to refer to him by his blog nom-de-plume, so I won’t do it unless he asks me!) and I adjourned for lunch to the wee cafe under St Giles, where he very generously paid for my stovies, and my thanks to him again for that. I then had an interesting few minutes discussing John Knox/Mary Queen of Scots/ current Scottish affairs with three American visitors who were standing at the spot beneath which he is supposed to have been buried. They were only of student kind of age, but still, there seemed to be a gap in their knowledge of European history, although their grandparents were Scottish (one of them an Aird). Pleasant folk]

Court was back in business at 2.00 pm.

Mr Summers: Generally, the pursuer’s case rests on an underlying misapprehension, namely that the ST issue events have put the defenders in worse case than they were in February. My lord, the defenders are ,even if in no better case, certainly in no worse case.The issue is not whether there will be season ticket holders next season, but whether holding back the ST money for a time makes things worse. placed before the Court any evidence to the contrary..
There is no indication that the source of revenue is decimated [ edit: and here Mr Summers made it plain that he knows that ‘decimate’ means ‘reduce by one tenth’ by reminding us that it comes from Greek ‘deka’ through Latin ‘decem’, and explaining that he was using it as it is commonly used by the man in the street as meaning ‘deeply impacted’]. Mr Wallace and Mr Nash have in fact been speaking very recently to Investors in the city. They have been told by Institutional investors that they are content that the defenders are now being managed properly and these investors are confident. Directors have to seek finance if there is concern, and if so, the investors will be there.
Lord A: Does this mean there are investors ready to invest if invited?
Mr S: Current investors, I’m speaking of, my Lord. So in my submission the pursuer has not placed before the court any evidence evidence to the contrary..
Lord A: Mr McB was saying, as I understand it, that as matters stand there will not be as much as would have been expected at this time of year, as there was last year.
Mr S; The money will come in, but a little bit later , because of the discontinuance of the credit/debit card facility, and the fans’ protest movement. These difficulties will abate. But if not, there is immediate support behind them
Lord A: From the Institutional investors? If the money has not come in as expected, and the deadline has been extended..Are you saying that whatever happens, the Institutional investors will be there?
Mr S: My instructions are to that effect.
Lord A: So I am noting that the Institutional investors are fully aware of all the circumstances etc.
Mr S: And these are people of great experience and knoledge and professionalism. If they took the view that there was a real substantial threat…..
Lord A: You are not giving an undertaking to the Court?
Mr S: NO! [ edit: this was said very quickly indeed, with a shake of the head]. We have put in affidavits, sworn statements, which strongly contrast with the vagueness and lack of clarity about what the ‘Trust’ is about. That was my first point.
Lord A; Are you telling me that the defenders are financially secure?
Mr S: There are rigorous tests for AIM, hoops to jump through [ for directors]. What I am saying ON INSTRUCTION is that the Board wish the Trust would go away so that the club could move on because they undermine fan confidence, but the club believes the fans will come back.
It is a small group of fans, in spite of the ‘blue card’ protest. I understand that only about 6000 fans have registered with the Trust.If that is the scale of the threat, it is not indicative of a major concern for the defenders. Mr W’s affidavit deals with that.
I am not aware of a trigger point under the 60 day rules [ edit: I would need to look this up to understand the relevance of this observation at this point]
The defenders are blind-sided about the ‘Trust’. I’m not in a position to speak for the defenders about the August 8th date.
What is being put before the court is that there will be empty terraces. This is not so. It is the biggest club, biggest company, with substantial resources
Turning to Mr Nash’s affidavit: from the bundle, my Lord, you will see that the regulatory regime relating to AIM companies is very strict…..
Lord A: You can take it that I know that.
Mr S: Although his affidavit reads the same as the February one, the NOMAD is independent, even though his fees are paid by the defenders. The critical thing is that the NOMAD says that RIFC could raise capital if they ask. For example, the transfer of the loan from Laxey to Letham was arranged without difficulty, and there is authority to issue 43m shares, should Rangers require it. “We are confident that the company WILL remain solvent…..”
And Mr W, very well qualified in these matters, also expects strong sales and opines that 6000 fewer is not going to be a problem.
Lord A ; [made some short remark or question,which I did not hear]
Mr S;[ I did not hear his reply either]
Lord A: A Decree might be prejudicial if the very fact of withholding money were to create a problem. But you say no, because there are other sources of revenue…?
Mr S: It is a shifting picture, moving week by week. I am saying that the material does not suggest that there is danger, on the information they have. The directors do not find there is substantial risk of insolvency. Mr Wallace says’ In my opinion….£500 000 would cause … but it is the Board’s intention to seek to raise further equity, November/December” and RIFC will last until then.
These are the Directors!
If your Lordship takes a different view…
Lord A: is that last sentence in Wallace?
Mr Nash, Chief Finance Officer at Ibrox, says Deloitte’s gave an unqualified report.
They had a former {?dean of faculty??) look at the investigation who found no evidence of inadequate disclosure [ edit: I have no idea what that refers to. Anybody?] “In arriving a their decision which was not “qualified” Deloitte’s had no criticism to make.
Nash believes that funds are available, will be available…
If we look now at Deloitte’s report appended to the interim results:
as at December 2013…it identifies need to raise capital, sources that may be available…..in the event that ST sales are insufficient..
Lord A: the suggestion earlier on was that this would be an unattractive proposition..
Mr Summers: ….(?)[edit: I seem not to have caught his reply, because my note carries on as follows..
In relation to Edmiston House and Martin Bain case this was merely about the Court’s discretion and is no guide as to the test of ‘reasonableness’.
Surely mismanagement by the very man who is making the application? His claim for bonus is dependent on his buying Edmiston House!
My lord has discretion in determining what is reasonable.
As to a video of Mr Easdale’s interview, he was asked to give an affidavit, but said he would seek his own legal advice. I am told that Easdale was NOT suggesting that ‘fragility’ was related to finance, but to the relationship between club and fans.
It is important to keep in mind that the company is the means of livelihood for a large group of people, and charitable bodies. It [ edit: and I cannot believe he said this] would be good for Scottish Football if RIFC returns to the top. The club has an importance far beyond the 4 walls of Ibrox stadium
As regards any weakness in the ‘prima facie’ case [in Ahmad’s £half-million bonus claim] I am not seeking to argue that Lord Tyre was in error. What is going on at the moment is a recovery process. One of the averments it depends on has not got a signature on it. Executive contract: a whole lot of work done by Ahmad was done BEFORE contract was signed. That contract document has not come to hand, and I suggest that the Court would be more comfortable on sight of the document.

Here ends Mr Summer’s case on the part of the defenders.

Mr McB: My Lord, the judgement and opinions of the directors are devoid of any details, for example, whether there are 6000 or more or less protesters And the £2m ? what is that, what does it mean in context? There is absolutely no flesh and bone.
It is plain that the view that Season Tickets are the primary source of income comes from the defenders. There is no evidence, no facts, to back the hopeful expectations of the directors. How can Mr Wallace say with certainty that there is ‘no problem’?
DK and the protest movement are no fly-by-night group that is without substance, and the assertion that ‘fans will come to their senses..’ is not at all a justified belief that fans will in fact come back.
Lord A: Ermm, there is a cogent case for the Pursuer, certainly. But there’s a whole lot of circumstances that remove what seems to be the problem. The directors are making judgement on facts [edit: I think that may have been ‘commercially confidential facts] not known to us, perhaps.
McB: The ‘assurance’, my Lord is meaningless. For example, what does it mean that ‘ the institutional investors have a ‘good degree of confidence’? On what basis? On the key assumption on ST money coming in, and that any shortfall will come good eventually?
‘Confidence’ does not equal a COMMITMENT to buying shares if that should be needed in the future. It’s extremely difficult to see how such a ‘statement of confidence’ is worth anything, relying on hope that investors will, if necessary, come good.
I submit that real substantial risk of insolvency exists, and that there is insufficient detail to allow your Lordship to agree with the directors’ judgement.
We have already covered the ‘reasonableness’ issue.
And we have to keep in mind the astonishing use several times by Mr Easdale of the word ‘fragile’
On the subject of pursuer’s negotiations, the timing of when work was done is neither here nor there: the final date would have been the date of execution of the contract.

And MR McB finished here. (This was all kind of rushed I felt, everyone conscious of the time (Only four hours had been set aside for the application to be heard).
Court rose at 3.20, with judgement promised at 4.00 pm.

[ My fellow- poster (I did not seek his permission to refer to him by his blog nom-de-plume, so I won’t do it unless he asks me!) and I adjourned for lunch to the wee cafe under St Giles, where he very generously paid for my stovies, and my thanks to him again for that. I then had an interesting few minutes discussing John Knox/Mary Queen of Scots/ current Scottish affairs with three American visitors who were standing at the spot beneath which he is supposed to have been buried. They were only of student kind of age, but still, there seemed to be a gap in their knowledge of European history, although their grandparents were Scottish (one of them an Aird). Pleasant folk]

Court was back in business at 2.00 pm.

Mr Summers: Generally, the pursuer’s case rests on an underlying misapprehension, namely that the ST issue events have put the defenders in worse case than they were in February. My lord, the defenders are ,even if in no better case, certainly in no worse case.The issue is not whether there will be season ticket holders next season, but whether holding back the ST money for a time makes things worse. placed before the Court any evidence to the contrary..
There is no indication that the source of revenue is decimated [ edit: and here Mr Summers made it plain that he knows that ‘decimate’ means ‘reduce by one tenth’ by reminding us that it comes from Greek ‘deka’ through Latin ‘decem’, and explaining that he was using it as it is commonly used by the man in the street as meaning ‘deeply impacted’]. Mr Wallace and Mr Nash have in fact been speaking very recently to Investors in the city. They have been told by Institutional investors that they are content that the defenders are now being managed properly and these investors are confident. Directors have to seek finance if there is concern, and if so, the investors will be there.
Lord A: Does this mean there are investors ready to invest if invited?
Mr S: Current investors, I’m speaking of, my Lord. So in my submission the pursuer has not placed before the court any evidence evidence to the contrary..
Lord A: Mr McB was saying, as I understand it, that as matters stand there will not be as much as would have been expected at this time of year, as there was last year.
Mr S; The money will come in, but a little bit later , because of the discontinuance of the credit/debit card facility, and the fans’ protest movement. These difficulties will abate. But if not, there is immediate support behind them
Lord A: From the Institutional investors? If the money has not come in as expected, and the deadline has been extended..Are you saying that whatever happens, the Institutional investors will be there?
Mr S: My instructions are to that effect.
Lord A: So I am noting that the Institutional investors are fully aware of all the circumstances etc.
Mr S: And these are people of great experience and knoledge and professionalism. If they took the view that there was a real substantial threat…..
Lord A: You are not giving an undertaking to the Court?
Mr S: NO! [ edit: this was said very quickly indeed, with a shake of the head]. We have put in affidavits, sworn statements, which strongly contrast with the vagueness and lack of clarity about what the ‘Trust’ is about. That was my first point.
Lord A; Are you telling me that the defenders are financially secure?
Mr S: There are rigorous tests for AIM, hoops to jump through [ for directors]. What I am saying ON INSTRUCTION is that the Board wish the Trust would go away so that the club could move on because they undermine fan confidence, but the club believes the fans will come back.
It is a small group of fans, in spite of the ‘blue card’ protest. I understand that only about 6000 fans have registered with the Trust.If that is the scale of the threat, it is not indicative of a major concern for the defenders. Mr W’s affidavit deals with that.
I am not aware of a trigger point under the 60 day rules [ edit: I would need to look this up to understand the relevance of this observation at this point]
The defenders are blind-sided about the ‘Trust’. I’m not in a position to speak for the defenders about the August 8th date.
What is being put before the court is that there will be empty terraces. This is not so. It is the biggest club, biggest company, with substantial resources
Turning to Mr Nash’s affidavit: from the bundle, my Lord, you will see that the regulatory regime relating to AIM companies is very strict…..
Lord A: You can take it that I know that.
Mr S: Although his affidavit reads the same as the February one, the NOMAD is independent, even though his fees are paid by the defenders. The critical thing is that the NOMAD says that RIFC could raise capital if they ask. For example, the transfer of the loan from Laxey to Letham was arranged without difficulty, and there is authority to issue 43m shares, should Rangers require it. “We are confident that the company WILL remain solvent…..”
And Mr W, very well qualified in these matters, also expects strong sales and opines that 6000 fewer is not going to be a problem.
Lord A ; [made some short remark or question,which I did not hear]
Mr S;[ I did not hear his reply either]
Lord A: A Decree might be prejudicial if the very fact of withholding money were to create a problem. But you say no, because there are other sources of revenue…?
Mr S: It is a shifting picture, moving week by week. I am saying that the material does not suggest that there is danger, on the information they have. The directors do not find there is substantial risk of insolvency. Mr Wallace says’ In my opinion….£500 000 would cause … but it is the Board’s intention to seek to raise further equity, November/December” and RIFC will last until then.
These are the Directors!
If your Lordship takes a different view…
Lord A: is that last sentence in Wallace?
Mr S: Nash, Chief Finance Officer at Ibrox, says Deloitte’s gave an unqualified report.
They had a former {?dean of faculty??) look at the investigation who found no evidence of inadequate disclosure [ edit: I have no idea what that refers to. Anybody?] “In arriving a their decision which was not “qualified” Deloitte’s had no criticism to make.
Nash believes that funds are available, will be available…
If we look now at Deloitte’s report appended to the interim results:
as at December 2013…it identifies need to raise capital, sources that may be available…..in the event that ST sales are insufficient..
Lord A: the suggestion earlier on was that this would be an unattractive proposition..
Mr Summers: ….(?)[edit: I seem not to have caught his reply, because my note carries on as follows..]
In relation to Edmiston House and Martin Bain case this was merely about the Court’s discretion and is no guide as to the test of ‘reasonableness’.
Surely mismanagement by the very man who is making the application? His claim for bonus is dependent on his buying Edmiston House!
My lord has discretion in determining what is reasonable.
As to a video of Mr Easdale’s interview, he was asked to give an affidavit, but said he would seek his own legal advice. I am told that Easdale was NOT suggesting that ‘fragility’ was related to finance, but to the relationship between club and fans.
It is important to keep in mind that the company is the means of livelihood for a large group of people, and charitable bodies. It [ edit: and I cannot believe he said this] would be good for Scottish Football if RIFC returns to the top. The club has an importance far beyond the ‘4 walls’ of Ibrox stadium .
As regards any weakness in the ‘prima facie’ case [in Ahmad’s £half-million bonus claim] I am not seeking to argue that Lord Tyre was in error. What is going on at the moment is a recovery process. One of the averments it depends on has not got a signature on it. Executive contract: a whole lot of work done by Ahmad was done BEFORE contract was signed. That contract document has not come to hand, and I suggest that the Court would be more comfortable on sight of the document.

Here ends Mr Summer’s case on the part of the defenders.

Mr McB: My Lord, the judgement and opinions of the directors are devoid of any details, for example, whether there are 6000 or more or less protesters And the £2m ? what is that, what does it mean in context? There is absolutely no flesh and bone.
It is plain that the view that Season Tickets are the primary source of income comes from the defenders. There is no evidence, no facts, to back the hopeful expectations of the directors. How can Mr Wallace say with certainty that there is ‘no problem’?
DK and the protest movement are no fly-by-night group that is without substance, and the assertion that ‘fans will come to their senses..’ is not at all a justified belief that fans will in fact come back.
Lord A: Ermm, there is a cogent case for the Pursuer, certainly. But there’s a whole lot of circumstances that remove what seems to be the problem. The directors are making judgement on facts [edit: I think that may have been ‘commercially confidential facts] not known to us, perhaps.
McB: The ‘assurance’, my Lord is meaningless. For example, what does it mean that ‘ the institutional investors have a ‘good degree of confidence’? On what basis? On the key assumption on ST money coming in, and that any shortfall will come good eventually?
‘Confidence’ does not equal a COMMITMENT to buying shares if that should be needed in the future. It’s extremely difficult to see how such a ‘statement of confidence’ is worth anything, relying on hope that investors will, if necessary, come good.
I submit that real substantial risk of insolvency exists, and that there is insufficient detail to allow your Lordship to agree with the directors’ judgement.
We have already covered the ‘reasonableness’ issue.
And we have to keep in mind the astonishing use several times by Mr Easdale of the word ‘fragile’
On the subject of pursuer’s negotiations, the timing of when work was done is neither here nor there: the final date would have been the date of execution of the contract.

And MR McB finished here. (This was all kind of rushed I felt, everyone conscious of the time (Only four hours had been set aside for the application to be heard).
Court rose at 3.20, with judgement promised at 4.00 pm.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on4:45 pm - May 7, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
May 7, 2014 at 4:04 pm
6 0 Rate This

… the share price had “rebounded satisfactorily”. At the time it seemed a bit odd (as I wasn’t aware that it had “rebounded” anywhere).

Then today the share price goes up a wee bit because one of the directors makes it go up by buying shares …

Maybe they got the timing wrong by 24 hours.
———-

Another wee slight of hand by the “We now don’t need season ticket renewals to survive” lot? They flip reality on its head faster than a speeding Tyrrell 🙂

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:46 pm - May 7, 2014


ecobhoy says:
May 7, 2014 at 4:26 pm

It was your classic accountants solution…
==================================
A sweeping generalisation there Eb… 🙄

One could also argue that the rags have only survived this far because of ruthless cost-cutting ?
It’s a dying industry.

I could generalise – but won’t 😉 – that the quality of the printed product had already been in decline for a long, long time, [e.g. dumbed down], and this along with the shift in advertising online and readership online has only accelerated the cost cutting at papers.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on5:14 pm - May 7, 2014


John Clark

Once again – great work.

JC says – “I am not aware of a trigger point under the 60 day rules [ edit: I would need to look this up to understand the relevance of this observation at this point]”

“the 60 day rule” will be a reference to the rule that, if an insolvency occurs in the period of 60 days following an arrestment, then the arrestment is cut down and is no effect in the insolvency.

View Comment

mungoboyPosted on5:28 pm - May 7, 2014


I see the share boost propaganda machine is in full swing.
Just spotted a new poster on RM by the name of ‘McLaren’ has been extolling the virtues of a 13% rise in the share value today.
Lots of cheers around and the theory expounded that perhaps there might just be good news to come.
Chain yanking really must be an Olympic Sport down Govan way!

View Comment

twopandaPosted on5:33 pm - May 7, 2014


JOHN CLARK says: at 4:45 pm [+ Prior]

Superb Verbatim Record JC

View Comment

ratethisthenyabampotsPosted on5:34 pm - May 7, 2014


Mixed emotions regarding newspapers being a dying breed. Sad to hear of anybody losing their job. However, cast your mind back to Wednesday June 12th 2012 and recall some of the shockingly inaccurate headlines they wrongly (as we all now know 🙄 ) splashed across their front pages the day after Rangers died. R.I.P. R.F.C. , Rangers Football Club – born 1872 died 2012, Rangers officially died yesterday……. etc.etc. Such poor journalism will not be missed. There were of course full page apologies from the newspapers saying that they had all got it wrong and that RFC was still alive and kicking. Wasn’t there?

View Comment

HaywirePosted on5:55 pm - May 7, 2014


John Clark says:
May 7, 2014 at 4:45 pm

Spot on again, John C! Although I must admit that I did get a bit of deja vu at one point.

Ever thought about a second (or could it be third) career as a stenographer?

Fell over at the “for the good of Scottish Fitba’ bit”.

View Comment

auchinstarryPosted on5:57 pm - May 7, 2014


One slightly uncomfortable piece of news doing the rounds yesterday was Margarita requesting a Divorce.!!

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on6:05 pm - May 7, 2014


JOHN CLARK says: at 4:45 pm

Mr S; The money will come in, but a little bit later , because of the discontinuance of the credit/debit card facility, and the fans’ protest movement. These difficulties will abate. But if not, there is immediate support behind them
Lord A: From the Institutional investors? If the money has not come in as expected, and the deadline has been extended..Are you saying that whatever happens, the Institutional investors will be there?
Mr S: My instructions are to that effect.
Lord A: So I am noting that the Institutional investors are fully aware of all the circumstances etc.
Mr S: And these are people of great experience and knowledge and professionalism. If they took the view that there was a real substantial threat…..
Lord A: You are not giving an undertaking to the Court?
Mr S: NO! [ edit: this was said very quickly indeed, with a shake of the head].

Does this say: the investors are going to provide support, but don’t quote me on it?

View Comment

BroguesRoguesAndILikeThePoguesPosted on6:18 pm - May 7, 2014


is it possible that the possible signing of kenny miller is more of an effort to boost st sales rather than for his goal scoring prowess? would be economically viable to invest 300k minimum to encourage 10,000 st sales to help provide much needed finance?
It seems a ridiculous signing to make when you consider age and scoring record, but its a different story if its a tool to provide much needed cash.
Its just a thought that went through my mind.

View Comment

BigGavPosted on6:24 pm - May 7, 2014


John Clark says:
May 7, 2014 at 4:45 pm

============

Congratulations and thanks, JC, for another sterling piece of work. You certainly deserved those stovies!

Mr S: It is the biggest club, biggest company, with substantial resources

It is important to keep in mind that the company is the means of livelihood for a large group of people, and charitable bodies. It would be good for Scottish Football if RIFC returns to the top. The club has an importance far beyond the 4 walls of Ibrox stadium

I am apalled that they can get away with spouting this crap unchallenged.
By contrast, what Mr McB had to say seems eminently reasonable and would be perfectly in tune with the views of most of us on TSFM.

Mr McB: My Lord, the judgement and opinions of the directors are devoid of any details, for example, whether there are 6000 or more or less protesters And the £2m ? what is that, what does it mean in context? There is absolutely no flesh and bone.
It is plain that the view that Season Tickets are the primary source of income comes from the defenders. There is no evidence, no facts, to back the hopeful expectations of the directors. How can Mr Wallace say with certainty that there is ‘no problem’?
DK and the protest movement are no fly-by-night group that is without substance, and the assertion that ‘fans will come to their senses..’ is not at all a justified belief that fans will in fact come back.

The ‘assurance’, my Lord is meaningless. For example, what does it mean that ‘ the institutional investors have a ‘good degree of confidence’? On what basis? On the key assumption on ST money coming in, and that any shortfall will come good eventually?
‘Confidence’ does not equal a COMMITMENT to buying shares if that should be needed in the future. It’s extremely difficult to see how such a ‘statement of confidence’ is worth anything, relying on hope that investors will, if necessary, come good.
I submit that real substantial risk of insolvency exists, and that there is insufficient detail to allow your Lordship to agree with the directors’ judgement.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on6:34 pm - May 7, 2014


Thanks JC. Sterling work as usual.

View Comment

scottcPosted on7:03 pm - May 7, 2014


John ‘2 dinners’ Clark.

Another excellent summary John.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on7:03 pm - May 7, 2014


I’m now slightly concerned about JC’s relationship with the afore mentioned stenographer!!!

View Comment

twopandaPosted on7:26 pm - May 7, 2014


MSM signing squirrels for three months of the close season at 7k p/w
That 100k per squirrel per close season including NI, Agents Fees + VAT

To fill out copy – lets see – they`ll need;
15 squirrels say [that’s 10 outfield, I keeper, 1 res keeper and 3 sub squirrels] = 1.5m
[or 2.5 x independent investigations – or 5? x `Reviews` or 3 x IA Claims]
Or maybe that`s why they needed 1.5m wonga – to cover the close season squirrels 😉

Mind you – there`s been a little squirrel cull – so the savings there will make a huge dent in the 19m `debt`
– and help pay for the `onerous contracts` – and the rest – won`t it

Or perchance the MSM is full of it

Blimey

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:29 pm - May 7, 2014


ecobhoy for the land deals information 😎
John Clark says: for the court information 😎
Thanks to both

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on7:29 pm - May 7, 2014


So if the rangers go into admin and come out for season 2014 and argue that actually they were not the same rangers team but a new team would they only get a 15 pts penalty? In this whole farce it is not beyond the realms of possibility..

View Comment

scottcPosted on7:38 pm - May 7, 2014


Reported on RR

07 May 2014 14:09:31
Fact: 2308 season ticket renewals received by the as of yesterday. 14, 304 pledged to the 1972 Ltd as of 2PM today. The baord told court yesterday they were financially sound and the threat of season ticket money being witheld was from a minority of fans of around 6000 so the board did not fear this threat. How very wrong you were to underestimate the power of the fans.

nothingbutthestruth

Interesting times if those numbers are correct

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JimBhoy says:
May 7, 2014 at 7:29 pm

So if the rangers go into admin and come out for season 2014 and argue that actually they were not the same rangers team but a new team would they only get a 15 pts penalty? In this whole farce it is not beyond the realms of possibility..

Perhaps Dundee United’s determination to pay only two years compensation (as reported earlier and repeated by PMG) will help them receive a reduced penalty. After all, if they want more than two years ‘development money’ then they are going to have to take it to court, I would think. This could settle OC/NC for good.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on7:42 pm - May 7, 2014


SCOTTC good point mate… And if they shed two wee titles for a big gain might be a go-er…

Hoping to see Charlie Green ride into town soon..Add some stardust to the moonbeams…

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on7:47 pm - May 7, 2014


Off topic, but I just read that the bottom club in the Premiership this year will earn £63m. It’s not even the same sport anymore. You could argue it’s barely a sport at all.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on7:47 pm - May 7, 2014


@ John Clark – you have surpassed yourself with your coverage ❗

The detail helps enormously in my understanding of the rationale behind yesterday’s decision.

IMO it simply boils down to Imran being unable to prove that a significant number of Bears won’t be renewing their STs. He was also unable to disprove the contention that existing institutional investors would make-up any ST shortfall.

Indeed it may well be that the institutional investors are genuinely prepared to pony-up enough to cover say – for sake of argument – a shortfall of 6K STs. However if that shortfall were to go above say 10-12K then they might well decide enough is enough.

It seems to me if there is a massive shortfall in STs that Imran could go back and he might be knocking on an open door. He would defo be knocking on a wide-open door if the institutional investors don’t pony-up. But the problem there is he might well get caught-up in the 60-day period which I believe – if I have followed things correctly – would negate the effect of an arrestment order he was granted in future.

The more I look at this I think the spivs have screwed-up on their timetable and it may be that they will try and get through next season which might prove impossible.

It really now is in the hands of the fans and whether they buy enough STs or not IMO. That will determine what the future holds for Rangers although even if their rebellion collapses and most STs are eventually renewed this doesn’t necessarily guarantee longer-term financial survival.

And the biggest caveat of all is that we don’t know what the current spiv plan is or even if there are competing plans.

But it looks as though Imran is out of the requisite City ‘Loop’ because if he could have produced one existing institutional investor to state that no way would they cover ST losses then he would most probably have won his case.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on7:58 pm - May 7, 2014


scottc says:
May 7, 2014 at 7:38 pm

Reported on RR

07 May 2014 14:09:31
Fact: 2308 season ticket renewals received by the as of yesterday. 14, 304 pledged to the 1972 Ltd as of 2PM today. The baord told court yesterday they were financially sound and the threat of season ticket money being witheld was from a minority of fans of around 6000 so the board did not fear this threat. How very wrong you were to underestimate the power of the fans.

nothingbutthestruth

==========================
Interesting times if those numbers are correct
=============================
Well I remember all the pledges Celtic fans and others made to the Rangers share offer and I know from reading a number of Celtic sites that my fellow supporters are firing-in big-style and showing solidarity with the Sevco Rebels.

So we have to be very cautious with the numbers. But I really do believe if 10-12K don’t renew that could be the tipping-point.

View Comment

scottcPosted on8:11 pm - May 7, 2014


ecobhoy says:
May 7, 2014 at 7:58 pm

So we have to be very cautious with the numbers. But I really do believe if 10-12K don’t renew that could be the tipping-point.

Hard not to disagree. That would be the thick end of £5m and even if many of them eventually pony up, the ‘trust’ arrangement means that won’t happen until August, so TRFC have to get through May-July on reduced income.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on8:16 pm - May 7, 2014


As discussed the other day the business review indicates that at current spending rates and removing the non recurring items that blew the IPO money income was still less that expenditure. Therefore with some cost cutting and an increase in season ticket monies the books might be closer to balancing. However there are loans to pay back, there are redundancy payments to be made, there may even be money needed to splash out on player to give the appearance all is well.
To me that still means additional monies will be required to get through the season.
Any boycott of season tickets will not help.
A poor showing on the park in a more competitive league could see pay as you go income down.
A poor showing on the park may make the institutional investors think twice.

As CW found out Mr McCoist is perhaps not the best man to guarantee success on the park that can lead to income generation. But can they afford to push him and his pals out the door?

Sorting the club out is still all doable but competing for top slots in the premiership and euro glory are well off in the distance.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on8:19 pm - May 7, 2014


I think fans of other clubs going on to the “Trust” website and pledging money purely for mischievous purposes is rather malicious and more than a little sad. What purpose does this serve? Surely such people have better things to do with their time?!

View Comment

MadScientistPosted on8:27 pm - May 7, 2014


In reply to Ryan about “its not even the same game”, you have got it so right unfortunately. This is part of the problem that beset Scottish footbal around 1986…Someone at that time tried to emulate what was happening down South….
For a while it worked, more money rolled in but pretty soon no one was interested (Sky/BBC/STV/ other media outlets) and it collapsed here. Unfotunately the “Cold War” had started and “MAD” had taken place by 1990 ( I remember getting a wave from MoJo driving his Ferrari going over Kelvinbridge while I was on my way to the GUU to get a ticket to the “Joe Miller” cup final, a few weeks later he (MoJo) was paraded by GS to the “shock” of everyone!) A GIRFUY if ever there was one… Scottish football and competition died that day, it became a one horse race (as we now know paid for by interesting means) Where previously there were at least 4 teams (clubs/companies) who could potentially win the league it became a parade, cheered on by lamb eaters and so it eventually Celtic went to the wall in 94…
Who has won the league in every year since 1985? As a Celtic fan I really think this is wrong, and as Ryan says the EPL “allows” the bottom club to get that sort of payment? We are screwed here and until it takes 4 clubs to compete then it will be so….10 in a row yes please but lets let it go to the last games of the season ok, with 3-4 clubs contending…
Enough from this occassional poster but reader every day 😀

View Comment

wottpiPosted on8:30 pm - May 7, 2014


Ryan

Agreed. We had our own ‘double agent ‘ on here the other day raising TUPE out of the blue so what is good for the goose etc.
I can see the attraction of pretending to join DKs merry band but it really one for the Bears to sort out themselves.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on8:32 pm - May 7, 2014


See me?
Heading for the world record for posting at the bottom of each page : 😛

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on9:05 pm - May 7, 2014


John Clark says:
May 7, 2014 at 4:45 pm

“It is important to keep in mind that the company is the means of livelihood for a large group of people, and charitable bodies. It [ edit: and I cannot believe he said this] would be good for Scottish Football if RIFC returns to the top. The club has an importance far beyond the 4 walls of Ibrox stadium”
———————————
It is surprising that the judge should make such a remark that might be viewed as partial toward one party in the case over which he is presiding.

Your query concerning the Dean of Faculty having reviewed the Deloitte’s acceptance of the accounts does ring a bell but I cannot recover the detail from memory.

I commend the contributor who graciously stood you a humble lunch. He can be assured of copious thumbs up should he decide to make himself known.

View Comment

scottcPosted on9:13 pm - May 7, 2014


Castofthousands says:
May 7, 2014 at 9:05 pm

It is surprising that the judge should make such a remark that might be viewed as partial toward one party in the case over which he is presiding.

That was Mr Summers, not the judge

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on9:18 pm - May 7, 2014


BroguesRoguesAndILikeThePogues says:
May 7, 2014 at 6:18 pm

12

1

Rate This

It seems a ridiculous signing to make when you consider age and scoring record, bu

____________________________________________________

Applying Occam’s razor here:
Ally McCoist remains manager of TRFC. And you are looking for sound financial sense or decent footballing tactics wrt. their signings policy?
His egregious track record in this regard speaks for itself, and the depth of his inability can only be shaded by his own inflated self worth.
Does it really need to be more complicated than that?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on9:19 pm - May 7, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 7, 2014 at 8:19 pm

I think fans of other clubs going on to the “Trust” website and pledging money purely for mischievous purposes is rather malicious and more than a little sad. What purpose does this serve? Surely such people have better things to do with their time?!
========================================
Some might do it out of hatred but most do it for a laugh and tbh I actually see nothing intrinsically wrong with that as just another bit of the banter that takes place in football.

There are a helluva lot of much more distasteful and evil things said and done on some websites than having a good-natured laugh at another team’s expense.

In any case most of the ‘fake’ pledges are easily spotted because of the amounts or the clever play usually on the username. At the end of the day what will be counted by DK is the number of fans who lodge dosh. The man from Castlemilk isn’t stoopid and knows the score about the fake pledges and probably keeps a weather-eye open for the fake sheikh as well 😆

View Comment

occamPosted on9:25 pm - May 7, 2014


Resin_lab_dog says:
May 7, 2014 at 9:18 pm
0 0 Rate This

BroguesRoguesAndILikeThePogues says:
May 7, 2014 at 6:18 pm

12

1

Rate This

It seems a ridiculous signing to make when you consider age and scoring record, bu

____________________________________________________

Applying Occam’s razor here:
Ally McCoist remains manager of TRFC. And you are looking for sound financial sense or decent footballing tactics wrt. their signings policy?
His egregious track record in this regard speaks for itself, and the depth of his inability can only be shaded by his own inflated self worth.
Does it really need to be more complicated than that?

No – they’re f.!@ked

View Comment

cowanpetePosted on9:38 pm - May 7, 2014


RyanGosling says:
I think fans of other clubs going on to the “Trust” website and pledging money purely for mischievous purposes is rather malicious and more than a little sad. What purpose does this serve? Surely such people have better things to do with their time?!
================
I’m a Hibs fan. Hasn’t been much fun around this season fitba-wise so you take what you can get.
I pledged. Thousand quid if I remember right. Took me 3 minutes. Call me a sad wee laddie. But you and I know it won’t make a huge difference in the big scheme of things.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on9:47 pm - May 7, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 7, 2014 at 8:19 pm

13

6

Rate This

I think fans of other clubs going on to the “Trust” website and pledging money purely for mischievous purposes is rather malicious and more than a little sad. What purpose does this serve? Surely such people have better things to do with their time?!

_________________________________________________

You are right Ryan… and make a very good point.

Except insofar as if there is a serious underlying point to the parody/abuse being perpetrated.

Now, if the trust has been professionally constructed with the principles of sound governance in mind, it should be set up in such a way that rogue pledges cannot be easily effected by those who wish to go undetected. If this is the case, then those who do fake pledges are going too far with their disingenuity, and are worthy of approbation.
These days if you sign an online petition, you will be required to enter an e-mail address. You will be required to reply to an e-mail to confirm your details. Your IP address will be logged.
If you wanted ti ensure that genuine pledges only were made, you could even ask people to submit credit card details, which would not be charged – but would verify their identities. If you wanted to flush out the chancers and ne’erdowells, charge them a nominal fee (50p?) to ensure that you had their ID logged, and ask them to make all sorts of commitments that would not be onerous to those genuinely committed, but off putting to those who are creating mischief. Lots of organisations manage this in any number of ways. 38 degrees for example. Closer to home, I am sure the Foundation of Hearts could probably offer a great deal of advice on how to do this properly.

If however, a large element of what you are really trying to do is foster PR by inflating the level of support you can profess to have garnered (similar to what was intended to have happened with the petition RFC fans set up – along with details on various fans sites decsribing how to fake multiple signatories) in order to fluff yourself up in the compliant & deferential red tops, or alternatively, if you have set up something so half cocked that it is badly thought our and/or executed, then I think it may sometimes be legitimate for others to spoof the site in order to expose the flaws within such methods… a la investigative journalist/ airport security trick.

I am not sure what the situation is with the UoF pledge. I suspect it is mainly hot air.
If it turns out that it might in fact be set up in a way whereby disingenuous fans might find it too easy to abuse, that would support this view.
And if it isn’t the case and it is set up properly… where is the problem with a few rogues testing the defences??? They shouldn’t get through in bulk at least.
TSFM has suffered genuine and illegal DOS cyber attack from those who wish it ill and are prepared to commit resources to silencing others!
Any properly run venture takes this sort of cyber abuse seriously and puts measures in place to limit it.
By comparison, a few neds making fake pledges should be detected and weeded out readily by any earnest web pledge site wishing to be taken remotely seriously..

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:03 pm - May 7, 2014


John Clark says:
May 7, 2014 at 4:45 pm

Mr Nash, Chief Finance Officer at Ibrox, says Deloitte’s gave an unqualified report.
They had a former {?dean of faculty??) look at the investigation who found no evidence of inadequate disclosure [ edit: I have no idea what that refers to. Anybody?]

I don’t remember hearing before that a former Dean of Faculty of the Faculty of Advocates had been involved in the Deloitte signing-off of the Rangers accounts.

I mention the Faculty of Advocates as I have only heard the term Dean of Faculty applied in a legal context and I believe that ICAS on the accountancy front has a ‘President’ rather than a Dean.

I can see why it would be useful to have the imprimatur of such a prestigious figure in Scottish legal circles give a clean bill of health in what would be a set of accounts that would be pored-over, forensically examined and perhaps be contentious.

But why involve a legal figure and not an accountancy expert? That puzzles me. It’s seems obvious from John’s transcript that there was an ‘investigation’ to be examined which found no ‘no evidence of inadequate disclosure’.

So what ‘investigation’ are we talking about? And why has ‘inadequate disclosure’ been raised? I can’t help but feel that this strange comment smells for of a legaly-based investigation being examined with a particular emphasis to see if full disclosure had been made.

I could be wrong and wonder what legal or accountancy people on here make of the comment.

It’s a long shot but could we be talking about the P&M Investigation? But whatever it is why did Deloittes feel the need to have a kind of ‘letter of comfort’ from such a powerful legal figure. What made them feel exposed.

Obviously I am hypothesising on a possibly misunderstood snippet. But perhaps oithers might be able to flesh it out a bit.

View Comment

bailemeanachPosted on10:10 pm - May 7, 2014


Resin_lab_dog says:

May 7, 2014 at 9:47 pm

Some really good points there re the Trust website. Having scanned through a few different fan sites I could see that ludicrous sums were being pledged under obviously comical names. Some TRFC posters were actually encouraging this as they believed it would give King more leverage!

I thought it strange that King would set up a vehicle, with the intention of gaining the trust of SB holders, only to leave it wide open to any joker who comes along pledging funds off the radar. To be honest it would be a safer bet to take used notes down to Ibrox than to subscribe to this half arsed setup. And that’s aside from all the other questions about where you’re cash is resting, in the “trust” of the SA and USA guardians.

We have a situation that has gone beyond parody, and beyond pantomine, where can it go next?

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on10:14 pm - May 7, 2014


BAILEMEANACH@ 10.10PM.
We have a situation that has gone beyond parody, and beyond pantomime, where can it go next?
===================
Under.

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on10:20 pm - May 7, 2014


Resin_lab_dog says:
May 7, 2014 at 9:47 pm
——————————–
You make some valid points there and I’m sure Ryan will be aware of similar mischief making by bears who have been all too eager to have a laugh at someone’s else’s expense..

I have to confess that I, too, pledged my dosh to the Jo’burg Messiah. I did so using a Scottish “two-surnamed” title, my home address, mobile number and the modest amount of £350. I know I won’t be weeded out like the eejits who lacked a bit of discretion. Moreover, I simply joined in the fun because of the banter I will have with my Sevco golfing partners at the weekend. I can assure Ryan that there is absolutely no malice in my actions – after all, I had to live through the likes of helicopter Sunday with the same golfing mates in the past – boy, was it hell!

Ryan,

Despite having made the above remarks, I am totally with you in your desire to have a team in blue compete on the proverbial level playing field. I wish you and similar minded bears good luck in your efforts to right the wrongs that have befallen your club. Please don’t give up hope.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on10:28 pm - May 7, 2014


scottc says:
May 7, 2014 at 9:13 pm

“That was Mr Summers, not the judge”
—————————————
Yes, I see that now.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:36 pm - May 7, 2014


Resin_lab_dog says:
May 7, 2014 at 9:47 pm

If however, a large element of what you are really trying to do is foster PR by inflating the level of support you can profess to have garnered (similar to what was intended to have happened with the petition RFC fans set up – along with details on various fans sites decsribing how to fake multiple signatories)

Not sure if the petition you are talking about is the one to demand that the HMRC bias against Rangers should be debated in the House of Commons.

This was done on the official Government website through the House of Commons. The Bears driving the petition gave details how the Bears could use sites to post multiple ‘petition signatures’ and not be spotted instead of the one allowed under the rules.

Bears were boasting everywhere how they were using the names of friends, relatives, neighbours and uncle tom cobley and all to fraudulently inflate the petition numbers to get over the 100K required for it to be considered for a debate on the floor of the H of C.

False names were used, the names of pets, those of babies – it just went on and on. I see this as very different from a Celtic fan pledging £5 million or £18.88 on the UofF site with a joke user name. This is humour whereas what the Bears were up to was an attempt to subvert Democracy in the Mother of Parliaments – now that to me is sad and actually quite sinister.

Luckily for Democracy the House of Commons IT Department spotted the fraudulent activities and took steps to weed-out the false emails which killed the Bear petition stone dead and it didn’t even reach the halfway point of the 100K sigs required 😆

I think we have to retain a bit of perspective as to whether it’s a bit of fun or something with a much darker motive and tbh I actually feel some people should get out into real life and mix with real people if they can’t see the funny side of this – if they don’t it seems they might lose the ability to laugh especially at themselves 😆

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on10:37 pm - May 7, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 7, 2014 at 8:19 pm

13

6
_____________________________________

Just read the (lack of) Privacy policy on the 1972 website.
There is no way I would enter my own details there I am afraid!
SPAM MAGNET!
Specifically:

By visiting http://www.ibrox1972.co.uk (our “Website”) and/or buy purchase services from the Website you are accepting and consenting to the practices described in this policy…


The information you give us may include, without limitation, your name, address, e-mail address, phone number, financial and credit card information, personal description and photograph…

Information we collect about you. With regard to each of your visits to our Website we may automatically collect the following information:

technical information, including the Internet Protocol (IP) address used to connect your computer to the internet, your login information, browser type and version, time zone setting, browser plug-in types and versions, operating system and platform; and
information about your visit, including the full Uniform Resource Locators (URL) clickstream to, through and from our Website (including date and time); products you viewed or searched for; page response times, download errors, length of visits to certain pages, page interaction information (such as scrolling, clicks, and mouse-overs), and methods used to browse away from the page and any phone number used to call our customer service number.

Disclosure of Your Information

“We may share your information with selected third parties including:

….
Advertisers and advertising networks that require the data to select and serve relevant adverts to you and others.
Analytics and search engine providers that assist us in the improvement and optimisation of our Website.
Credit reference agencies for the purpose of assessing your credit score if this is a condition of us entering into a contract with you.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:42 pm - May 7, 2014


Castofthousands says:
May 7, 2014 at 10:28 pm
scottc says:
May 7, 2014 at 9:13 pm

“That was Mr Summers, not the judge”
—————————————
Yes, I see that now.
===================
You might be seeing the judge shortly after being dragged from Edinburgh Castle dungeons in irons 😆

And there’ll be no stovies – just bread and water 🙄

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:48 pm - May 7, 2014


There is no one making money from the DK fund.
Well wrong. Read the FAQ. There is.
See “What charges”.

Might end up being buttons but untrue. Whos the facilitator then? Not one RIFC can use obviously, so how come DK’s get credit facility in this country?

Ibrox 1972 – Frequently Asked Questions

What happens to my money?

When will money be taken from my account or card?

What happens if the board refuse to grant security?

No money will be taken from you and it will be up to you how to proceed.

When will I receive my season ticket if security is granted?

We will transmit the funds and season ticket details to the club in a timely fashion after the legalities are completed. The club would then issue your season ticket as normal. We would expect this to take place in July if the Rangers board agree to grant the security.

Does anybody make any money from this?

Nobody, either directors of Ibrox 1972, representatives of the Union of Fans or anybody else, will take a penny from this initiative. The legal fees, setup costs and website fees have all been covered in advance and none of the money deposited by fans, in the event of the security being granted, will be used for any purpose other than purchasing season tickets for those participating. Indeed, the company is likely to incur other substantial legal costs in the event of this happening and these will be covered by the company.

No salaries or expenses will be paid and no fees will be taken other than those for GoCardless and Stripe who are third party providers. This is about giving the fans who are unconvinced by this board an option to try to achieve something positive with their season ticket money. Nobody involved will benefit personally.

What charges are incurred?

There will be a charge of 1% up to a maximum of £2 for GoCardless direct debit payments and a charge of 2.4% +20p for Stripe card payments. These charges are only incurred if payment is taken as above. If the security is not granted then no money will be taken and therefore no charges incurred.

Can I cancel my instruction if I change my mind?

Yes. You can cancel via email up to the point where payment is taken. Please refer to the Terms and Conditions for more detail.

Can I pay in instalments?

No. However, no payment will be taken until 15th July at the earliest, so you have until then to ensure funds are in your account or available on your card. This closely mirrors the previous date by which the 4 month payment option from club would have to be fully paid up. We are not providing a 10 month payment option but, unlike the club, you have the ability to pay by debit and credit card.

Am I guaranteed to retain my current seat?

No. We cannot gaurantee that you will keep your current seat. What we would say is that there is no waiting list for season tickets and there is a good chance that, even later in the summer, your seats will still be available. However, the only way to be 100% sure that you will retain your seat is by renewing directly. We will guarantee that we will pass your existing seat and personal details to Rangers along with your payment if the security is granted. This will enable the club to allocate your seat to you as long as it is still available.
– See more at: https://www.ibrox1972.co.uk/faqs/#sthash.uOAWOwx4.dpuf

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:57 pm - May 7, 2014


ecobhoy says:
May 7, 2014 at 10:03 pm
‘.So what ‘investigation’ are we talking about? And why has ‘inadequate disclosure’ been raised? I can’t help but feel that this strange comment smells for of a legaly-based investigation being examined with a particular emphasis to see if full disclosure had been made.’
——–
Ecobhoy,my thoughts were racing along those lines while I tried to scribble. The reference quite threw me, and I thought either that I had completely misheard or that there had been some, unknown to me, hunt for a contract document -signed or unsigned- to try to establish what work Ahmad was contracted to do and be paid a bonus for doing. A hunt under the control of an ‘independent’ person.
All I can say is that I’m pretty sure the words ‘former dean of faculty’ were used, (as they would be, if such an exalted personage had indeed been involved, to lend gravitas and integrity to the findings of any such ‘hunt’).
And, when I come to think of my own unawareness and therefore ‘taken-abackness’ at the existence of what to me was a previously unheard of internal investigation/ disclosure of RIFC documents, I recollect that Mr McBrearty seemed for a second to be a bit surprised,too.
He made some remark in his final summary about information not known to him. But I took that to be a reference to the Judge’s earlier observation about the directors making decisions on ‘commercially confidential’ information known to them.
If I’m right, though, it seems clear that Mr McB could not have thought it immediately relevant that RIFC might have been hunting for a piece of paper that negated Ahmad’s claim for half-a-million, because it was already common ground that the Court had already accepted that he had had a prima facie case for that action.If it had been relevant to the present ‘attachment’ hearing, he would have been obliged to follow it up.

View Comment

Comments are closed.