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 🙂
John C Eco
Is this a hark back to the Pinsents “clean bill of health” ?
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.
==================================================================
Ecobhoy…ICAS certainly does have a “President” who has come up through the ranks of Council, and would probably not be engaged as an individual in any apparent report or opinion.
As to the “letter of comfort”, the current audit mentality of risk analysis and box ticking demands that wherever possible such letters of comfort are sought in order to minimise the backlash of any scandal should matters go pear shape…it is almost akin to the “big boy did and ran away” mentality.
ecobhoy says:
May 7, 2014 at 10:36 pm
11
2
Rate This
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.
___________________________________________
Correctamundo.
Many Tx
Now to be fair to Ryan, some of the non TRFC fans trying it on with RFC 1972 malarkey are imho as guilty of shenanigans as those there bears.
(hyperlink enclosed because it took me a while to find myself)
https://www.ibrox1972.co.uk/
But not all of them.
I would summarise it thus:
If TRFC fans kicked the tyres on DKs UoF website/scheme properly, ‘Tim’s’ (as they say) – wouldn’t have to!
(I am a Caley fan btw… and it was only your comment Ryan that steered me to the site at all. I did enter an obviously made up email and name (Haile selasi I think), phone number (0870 666 666). It was the Scientist in me. I wasn’t prepared to give them my real e mail because of their privacy policy so could take the (honest and well intentioned) experiment no further at this stage.)
I think this could be another case of (T)RFC enemies doing them a favour!
Happy to be proved wrong, of course.
Opportunity for the decent bears to do stuff?
(I have to say some of the DK / & Board questioning of some of the bears groups is encouraging. What is also interesting is that it seems to be emanating from what I (in my naive opinion?) would consider to be some of the less enlightened bear factions!
Its sort of uncomfortable… like listening to Nigel Farage saying something sensible… if you can imagine such a thing!?
Anyway – I may be wrong. But probing questions are seldom misplaced.
Lesson for the :slamb:
ianagain says:
May 7, 2014 at 10:48 pm
1
0
Rate This
____________________________________________________
My view on this is that this is what gets DK his CC vehicle. a small no risk transaction fee by a 3rd party willing to underwrite the CC payment.
Valid point to make.
But probably splitting hairs to be fair (imo).
If DKs stated (herrenvolk) aims were to be achieved as outlined then (while Satan skated his way to work) I doubt too many bears would ruffle a great many feathers over the £4 transaction fee levied. Nor do I thing DK would be pocketing it.
His motiovation is elsewhere. the 1972 debacle is DKs vehicle, not his destination.
ianagain says:
May 7, 2014 at 11:06 pm
3
0
Rate This
John C Eco
Is this a hark back to the Pinsents “clean bill of health” ?
________________________________________________
Wasn’t that the one where the blind monkey observed, the deaf monkey took notes and the dumb monkey reported? #3 wise monkeys
sickofitall says:
May 7, 2014 at 6:51 am
70
0
Rate This
Dundee Utd have sold twenty seven thousand tickets for the Scottish Cup final as of tonight. They have another three thousand arriving
_________________________________________________
Are you geddin it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNFQw8VIvA&feature=kp
You know you got it!
Resin_lab_dog says:
May 7, 2014 at 10:37 pm
Perhaps an administrative error. Having searched the UK Information Commissioner’s list of registered data controller http://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Search?EC=3&fieldname=ibrox%201972 which is a public register, it looks as if those running the Ibrox 1972 Ltd either do not believe that the activities of the company are such that they need to notify, or they have for whatever reason failed to notify.
Looking at the privacy statement, the proposed uses of personal data are well beyond those normally associated with an entity who seek to use personal data to support membership of a not for profit organisation. In my view, notification is required.
Perhaps they can’t afford the fee? £35.00 or £500 depending on criteria.
ecobhoy says:
May 7, 2014 at 10:03 pm
17 0 Rate This
… I have only heard the term Dean of Faculty applied in a legal context …
———-
Sounds more a US academic term in my ear. On the other hand, perhaps there’s a chap out there called Dean, who lives in Fauqulty? 😀
Btw, I sympathise with Ryan G’s point of view regarding the spoofing of ‘The Trust’ (echoes of post-revolution civil war in Russia there). No, I’ve not lost my sense of humour, but TSFM posters should be above encouraging the abuse of fans’ sites, no matter how bizarre they seem.
True enough, it’s probably neither here nor there, since the scheme is merely a vehicle to starve out the board, as pointed out above.
Nevertheless, we’ve been long decrying the passivity of the follow followers, so it seems a pity that when the beginnings of independent thinking/action finally emerges there’s a lapse into the tiresome jelly & ice cream mode. Probably best left to the twitterati humourati 🙂
Seems obvious that The Board have their own non-football agenda. Judging by the phone-ins (very un-scientific) there are many who’ve just said ‘enough is enough’ and who are giving up. And with fans not handing over there cash, time might even be ripe for ‘Rangers United FC’. If you can’t get TRFC, start your own! Perhaps DK is already thinking along these lines? Same thing TSFM and online sources have done to the tradtional print media, really.
The Ibrox 72 Trust not a trust but a company thingy is all hot air. The RIFC board has stated categorically they will not hand over security. Not a penny is going to be taken from anyone’s bank account. It is but a scare tactic to try and unite Rangers fans and put pressure on the board.
The board will have already worked out how much money it needs to get to game 1 of next season. If the statements in court are to be believed the shareholders will pony up the cash thus calling the bluff of DK as fans will want to watch their team. Perhaps less than 38,000 ST holders but enough to keep the lights on awhile longer.
That would move things back onto the path of settling matters either through an insolvency event or a company sale.
In short it’s a complete waste of time.
Regarding Deans of the Faculty of Advocates.
The previous Dean was Richard Keen QC. He acted for Rangers in their appeal following the Inquiry into various matter back in 2012. So he has a previous connection with this story.
AllyJ/EasyJ
What is happening with FoH and Ann Budge and coming out of administration? Seems to go quiet every so often and I worry.
Great form by the way. I think that that shows great credit to all associated with Hearts (and promise).
I have no idea why the RIFC controlling shareholders are keeping the lights on at Ibrox, but clearly they are prepared to put up as much money as is needed to keep the show on the road. And let’s not underestimate the resources available.
The Barbel Abela Foundation alone has enough money to buy and sell Rangers 20 times over, if they choose to do so. This is just small change to them, although I fully understand that the richer people are, the more they hate losing money. But really rich people also really really hate being blackmailed by people they see as grubby shysters. Laxey are more constrained, since they have a real business to run, and investors to answer to, but part of their business involves not being seen to be made monkeys of by people such as Dave King.
I think King will succeed in badly damaging early ST sales. But that only achieves anything if the Board run out of money, and either agree terms with King, or liquidate TRFC. I sense that a decision has been made by the shareholders that they are going to call King’s bluff. It will cost them in the short term, but in the end the loyal fans will pony up, either through late ST purchases, or just paying on the day. King is counting on an engineered cash flow crisis bringing the Board to the table. That only works if they actually run out of cash. It looks to me as if the shareholders will make sure that doesn’t happen.
Long Time Lurker says:
May 8, 2014 at 7:17 am
Resin_lab_dog says:
May 7, 2014 at 10:37 pm
Perhaps an administrative error. Having searched the UK Information Commissioner’s list of registered data controller http://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Search?EC=3&fieldname=ibrox%201972 which is a public register, it looks as if those running the Ibrox 1972 Ltd either do not believe that the activities of the company are such that they need to notify, or they have for whatever reason failed to notify.
Looking at the privacy statement, the proposed uses of personal data are well beyond those normally associated with an entity who seek to use personal data to support membership of a not for profit organisation. In my view, notification is required.
—————————————————————–
Perhaps they can’t afford the fee? £35.00 or £500 depending on criteria.
===============================
The wheels of bureaucracy can grind exceeding slow and it may be no more than that. The UK Information Commissioner’s website states:
For what it’s worth I would agree that notification certainly appears to be necessary. The ‘offishal’ Rangers entry is detailed at: http://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/DoSearch?reg=455743 and has a few interesting snippets in it.
Campbellsmoney says:
May 8, 2014 at 8:54 am
2 0 Rate This
Regarding Deans of the Faculty of Advocates.
The previous Dean was Richard Keen QC. He acted for Rangers in their appeal following the Inquiry into various matter back in 2012. So he has a previous connection with this story.
———–
A keen dean?
What are ‘independent’ lawyers? (Dumb question, 283). In what sense independent?
http://www.advocates.org.uk/index.html
Campbellsmoney says:
May 8, 2014 at 8:57 am
CM,
Nothing concrete getting made public but the rumour on jamboskickback is that something (sale document?) is being signed tomorrow. I can only think that, as there have been no objections to the CVA, things are progressing with minimum publicity until there is concrete (good) news. BDO made it clear some time ago that there would be a period after the CVA was agreed where little progress would appear to be being made, so it’s maybe a case of ‘no news is good news’ for the time being. Ann Budge, herself, has shown a willingness to play things down, and as it is, probably, her time to act, she maybe prefers to keep things close to her chest (steady lads 🙄 ) until everything’s signed sealed and delivered. There’s always the possibility that she’s avoiding an unsavoury ‘glee fest’ during the season by supporters treating our escape as some sort of victory, which it clearly is not. I think if things were not progressing well, bar the odd delay, which has been par for the course, some sort of cautionary message would have been put out by now. At least I hope that is the case 😯
The last few games have certainly given cause for optimism for next season, and I get the impression the young lads have matured and are less inclined to try to play like Ronaldo than they were for the first 3/4 of the season. They’ve maybe beefed up a bit too, so are less easy to force off the ball by stronger, more experienced players (perfectly acceptable), which seemed, to me, to be a problem for most of the season. A year older and a full season’s experience behind them, should augur well for next season; where it won’t be easy, that’s for sure. As you say, there’s great credit due to all those associated with Hearts, especially those who have helped out on a voluntary basis, or for minimal payment, under very trying circumstances.
Danish Pastry says:
May 8, 2014 at 8:04 am
6 1 Rate This
Btw, I sympathise with Ryan G’s point of view regarding the spoofing of ‘The Trust’ (echoes of post-revolution civil war in Russia there). No, I’ve not lost my sense of humour, but TSFM posters should be above encouraging the abuse of fans’ sites, no matter how bizarre they seem.
True enough, it’s probably neither here nor there, since the scheme is merely a vehicle to starve out the board, as pointed out above.
Nevertheless, we’ve been long decrying the passivity of the follow followers, so it seems a pity that when the beginnings of independent thinking/action finally emerges there’s a lapse into the tiresome jelly & ice cream mode. Probably best left to the twitterati humourati 🙂
=====================
Your absolutely right Danish. IMO its poor form for people to come on TSFM admitting to falsely representing themselves on the Ibrox1872 site in some weak attempt at humour.
ianagain says:
May 7, 2014 at 11:06 pm
John C Eco
Is this a hark back to the Pinsents “clean bill of health” ?
======================================
It may be but with the little info available it’s hard to know. It’s certainly intriguing especially if a former dean of the Faculty of Advocates has been hired to lend a bit of gravitas to the comedy.
The problem with this kind of hearing is that the parties, legal eagles and the judge have written material in front of them which is usually not available to those in the public benches.
This technically includes journos but they, in olden times when papers had dedicated Court of Session reporters , had their ‘sources’ and could understand the sub-text and asides from a quick swatch at the documents.
For the public it can be nigh impossible to fully grasp what is actually being played-out in a foreign language, strange setting, and with the words on half the script not actually read out in open court but available to those who matter and who fully recognise the import of those words.
It’s easy to attack this as secrecy but there can be many good reasons for it. Take a company with financial difficulties – the court has to be careful not to release info that might kill the company. Obviously if Imran had won his argument then that might happen but that is something that the court has no actual control over.
But before the decision is made the court has to think about prior info publicly released consistent with allowing the legals the ability to present their case. It’s a bit of a dance and the active participants know all the steps and have danced to the music many times before and they can put on a dazzling, apparently seamless display which bewilders most onlookers in the cheap seats.
However it didn’t bedazzle our John who spotted a tiny rent in the facade which didn’t quite fit. As i say some might see a deep plot in how courts operate but if we were talking about any other company than Rangers then I’m sure most posters would agree that damaging and potentially fatal info shouldn’t be released willy nilly.
As it is, IMO neither Rangers nor Imran wants to see Rangers financially destroyed – well at least until both sides get their money – and therefore their legal teams would play their sotto voce parts to perfection and they have had plenty of practice in those roles – believe me 😆
Campbellsmoney says:
May 8, 2014 at 8:57 am
CM,
Just read this tweet from FoH. As the tweeter says, I hate teasers too!!!
“Disappointing end to a roller-coaster home season last night but are we on the verge of one of the Clubs greatest days….. #ihateteaserstoo”
Danish Pastry says:
May 8, 2014 at 9:19 am
Campbellsmoney says:
May 8, 2014 at 8:54 am
I think you might find that the past Dean of Faculty being referred to is Roy Martin, who, IIRC, was the QC who had oversight of the P&M report.
I would reckon quite a few Rangers fans will consciously switch to buying tickets game by game next season. I have I say I might in their position. It keeps the board honest about funding, but if disaster is just a few games away then there will always be a pro rata season ticket available.
if the football is good, I would end up giving them more money over the season than I would with a season ticket, if not then I loose less money myself.
Judging by the number turning up at Ibrox in the latter stages of this season, I would say ST numbers would have fallen by a couple of thousand even without the loss of credit card facilities and Dave King’s shenanigans. Add them in and a drop of 20-25% or so is possible.
That’s without the general agreement among almost everyone now, Rangers fans and others, that the Rangers board is not to be trusted, the Rangers manager is a talentless chancer, who cares more about his own wallet than his club/company and that the Rangers team are extremely poor given the amount they cost to assemble.
I think that going concern warning in the accounts might just come back to say hello soon.
Allyjambo says:
May 8, 2014 at 9:29 am
1 0 Rate This
———-
Thanks for the update Ally. Triumph in adversity. I watched the highlights of last night’s match via the SPFL site and there was actually a wee bit of Ronaldoesque skill from Paterson (?) for that first goal. Some crowd too. Thistle have also matured over the season, great goals. Now Glasgow’s second team by some way.
PS @Campbellsmoney, I was curious about Mr Keen. Quite an interesting selection of cases he’s been involved in. And I didn’t realize he’d helped contest the transfer embargo as well as representing the later Requisitioners. And probably fair to say he’s slightly left of centre, politically speaking.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/life-style/brilliant-legal-mind-to-be-new-tory-chair-1-3190494
Danish Pastry says:
May 8, 2014 at 9:19 am
What are ‘independent’ lawyers? (Dumb question, 283). In what sense independent?
————————————————————
Advocates are independent in the sense that they are self-employed and represent whoever pays them to act for them from time to time. Solicitors are employed by legal firms and give advice to the clients of those legal firms and will act (within the confines of legality and ethics OBVIOUSLY) in the best interests of the client.
You should note that as “officers of the court” solicitors and advocates (and indeed solicitor advocates) have a positive duty not to mislead a court.
Was up in Glasgow this weekend for a charity dinner and caught up with a lot of people at my cricket club. I took a straw poll of the Ibrox season ticket holders (of which there are many) and not one of the ten I asked are renewing.
Also had beers with two friends who were Rangers fans, one was ex SMSM (Sports) and the other current SMSM (crime), both could only laugh when I asked them if they were prepared to return and support any of the warring factions.
A small sample size I admit, however, those at my cricket club had all rallied round at the last time of asking but are now as scunnered as the rest of us.
I don’t believe any plan, King, Wallace or any other Knights, can or will work.
And while I am on, congratulations to Partick Thistle at staying up with the smallest playing budget and a team made up primarily of the one that got promoted last season.
To mix my Scots’ authors, Weel done, Cutty Sark! Chust sublime…
While misrepresenting oneself to mislead others is not something I would countenance, it should have no real effect on TRFC whoever is registering on King’s site, as the cash paid to them for STs will be what it will be, regardless of figures quoted on the ‘pie in the sky’ website. So the only people being misled are Dave King and his cohorts, and I wouldn’t have any sympathy with them. The more jokers counted in, the bigger the embarrassment for a man who knows no embarrassment, once he is forced to climb down from his high white horse when he issues a glib and shameless ‘I was only doing what I believed to be right for Rangers Football Club and it’s supporters’.
ecobhoy says:
May 8, 2014 at 9:41 am
1 0 Rate This
———
You know @echo, to my very untrained legal mind, the whole Imran case seems a little contrived. Similar to the exits of Green and ‘his little exotic friend’ back then; when, on the face of it, they were at their zenith.
Then again, if he knows that other difficult characters have achieved pay-offs to go away, perhaps he’s hoping to reach an out-of-court thingmybob, too?
Campbellsmoney says:
May 8, 2014 at 9:55 am
1 0 Rate This
———-
Thank you, I had imagined it was something along those lines, but I know next to nothing of the legal profession. Don’t know my right from left either it appears! Mr Keen is quite possibly more right than left 😳
Time for me to get on my bike (in a quite literal sense, too).
PS Giovanni, interesting. Yet another dean involved! The legal resources expended on The Fiasco re beyond credulity. Anyone totted up what part of the 18-month £67m cash burn went on legal fees? Seems daft when you’ve a governing body and a set of rules … ahem.
Allyjambo says:
May 8, 2014 at 10:00 am
😀 😆
I so look forward to Kings grovelling and his online cohorts aswell.
These are not easily led deluded folk he is dealing with now.
Mid July will do just fine Mr King 😆
Giovanni
Yip you will be correct. Good shout. I searched for a list of Deans and couldn’t easily find one. I knew Mr Keen had been the previous one so raised his name.
As for political matters – I expect there may be some Tories now who are more lefty than some Labourites.
Para Handy – you will have mail
Not football related, however, a very interesting article on how rumours on social media can become grow wings and fly into the mainstream:
http://www.tuaw.com/2014/05/05/that-biometric-earpod-story-was-a-load-of-baloney/
Campbellsmoney says:
May 8, 2014 at 9:55 am
As “officers of the court” solicitors and advocates (and indeed solicitor advocates) have a positive duty not to mislead a court.
==============================
And the Rangers Counsel was careful not to personally vouch or give an undertaking to the court for the info/instructions from his client in the evidence he put before the court.
The absolutely critical part of the proceedings IMO is this passage from John Clark:
There is some really strong stuff in that passage which may end-up real hostages to fortune. It’s the knub of why IA lost his action IMO. But there is no written commitment that existing investors will make-up the shortfall or how this will be done and no existing investor named as being prepared to inject dosh.
What was clear is that Mr Summers for Rangers wasn’t prepared to give a personal undertaking to the court when asked directly by the judge as to his position.
And when asked by the judge: ‘Are you telling me that the defenders are financially secure?’. Well, you can read his answer above and decide for yourself whether the question was answered. I don’t think it was but then maybe I’m just an old cynic 😉
Campbellsmoney says:
May 8, 2014 at 10:29 am
Para Handy – you will have mail
—————————————-
As will you. 🙂
Me and Parahandy are off to set up The Scottish Cricket Monitor. It will give us something to do during the summer when there is no Scottish football.
😛
Won’t paying at the gate raise more money over the season? Introduce a cardigan and add a little to admission fee booking fees the lot.
It’s almost as if neither side want ST’s to sell.
How do you evaluate a going concern with no hard figures from ST’s to base a calculation on? I smell scripted shenanigans IMO.
Sounds like the Miller to Rangers might not be the SB blockbuster as first thought.
As we know, there is more than one way to skin a cat (even a dead one). Equally, there are a number of options available in terms of equity fundraising.
The ability of the PLC to raise money by issuing shares is constrained by two things at the moment. The first is the appetite of the market to buy any new shares that might be issued and the second is the limited number of shares that are currently available to be issued.
The first is a limiting factor that could only ordinarily be addressed by improving the financial performance of the PLC and the second can only be addressed by the requisite resolution being passed at a subsequent general meeting.
However, there are two companies here not just one. The limited company (which at the moment of course is a wholly owned subsidiary of the PLC) could itself issue shares. As it is a limited company and not a PLC, it is unable to issue shares to the general public. That however does not mean it is unable to issue shares to anyone. In order for the limited company to issue shares, it would have to have a general meeting (in this case of course that simply means that the approval of the PLC board has to be obtained) and of course the board of the limited company itself would have to agree to the proposal.
Given that the boards of the two companies are very similar, if the one is up for it, then we can probably assume that the other would be too.
Let us say that I am interested in putting money into the limited company but not the PLC. I approach the board of the limited company and say “I will give you (say) £10m for a 49% shareholding in the limited company”. That would have the benefit of keeping the limited company as a subsidiary (just not a wholly owned subsidiary) of the PLC. Let us also imagine that I am already a shareholder in the PLC (in fact let us go further and say that I am a likeminded group of shareholders in the PLC) and that the boards of both companies listen to me far more that they listen to the ordinary customer base.
As a matter of pure company law (and I say nothing here about any rules or regulations that may relate to the stock exchange – as to which I know next to nothing) then the requisite approvals and resolutions can be obtained without any reference to the wider PLC shareholders.
Now, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that this would a wise investment. The limited company after all is a substantial debtor of the PLC. Having a large (but minority) shareholding in the limited company would not usually, objectively, be viewed as a fantastic investment. However let us go even further and say that the new shares issued in the limited company would not represent 49% of the enlarged issued share capital but would rather represent 51% of the enlarged issued share capital.
Does that begin to look different?
Just a thought.
Campbellsmoney says:
May 8, 2014 at 11:38 am
In others words like many other scenarios – where there is a will there is a way.
I have no doubt that money can be brought in from somewhere, somehow.
The question is really, if you have no particular love or connection to the football club playing out of Ibrox, where is the return and even if there is one when will that materialize as everything points to ‘investment’ being money down the pan for the foreseeable future?
I can see where Ashley will get his cut/return from shirt sales etc but do you have any views on why others are still there and why folk would want to pump more money in?
Further to the boost in share price propaganda being spun to cheer the Bears up, a quick keek in the Den over on RM this morning shows that a poster is claiming that 16-18000 season books have been sold.
This new PR guy really is the business!
Galling fiver
Season tickets lend stability to finances. Something paying at the gate doesn’t.
In the current Trangers situation, they need stability and immediate cash flow. Something that will require further finance in the short term, which would be much more expensive than getting in season ticket money.
Campbellsmoney says: May 8, 2014 at 8:57 am
AllyJ/EasyJ
What is happening with FoH and Ann Budge and coming out of administration? Seems to go quiet every so often and I worry.
=============================
AllyJambo has already updated you with what is expected to happen this week.
The only additional point I can add is that, as a result of Takeover rules, BIDCO has prepared an offer to purchase the remainder of Hearts shares (subject to the SPA agreement with UBIG and Ukio to acquire their combined 78% holdings). BIDCO currently has until 15th May to formalise the offer. BIDCO is required to make an offer to all shareholders on obtaining more than 30% of the club’s shares.
I’m sure that Ann Budge isn’t expecting any of the small shareholders to take up the offer. The only significant holding that will remain outwith the FoH’s remit is the 15% held by a Swiss based company called Quantum Holding SA, which has links to Vlad. (its first president was Vlad’s niece Julia Goncaruk).
It has been rumoured that BIDCO agreed a “token” payment of £100K with the UBIG administrator for UBIG’s shares. On that basis, pro-rata, Quantum may be offered £30K for their shares. I don’t know if they will accept the offer.
Personally, I am hopeful that the announcement that the SPA has been signed off will be accompanied by a statement confirming that Ann Budge will assume day to day running of the club. That would allow FOH funds will be released to provide working capital during the close season and decisions to be made regarding the contractual positions of the management and players.
Season Tickets haven’t gone on sale as yet either (good – as it means the club can’t spend the proceeds early). However, with the upturn in form on the pitch and an upbeat view among the fans going forward, I’d expect sales to be buoyant. We sold 10,500 this season, but I think we can still look to 9,000 to 10,000 renewals for the championship.
The future’s maroon (still fingers crossed 😉 )
David Somers has bought another 12,000 shares today at 27p and the share price goes up again.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11946947
Seems like Chairman Somers has just bought 12,000 more shares today but at 27p as opposed to 24p he paid yesterday for 35,000.
Nice to see he has a spare £360.00 to lose but hardly a good sign in terms of astute financial acumen from a man who needs to oversee austerity and cost control.
More mixed messages as far as I can see.
wottpi says:
May 8, 2014 at 1:45 pm
0 0 Rate This
Seems like Chairman Somers has just bought 12,000 more shares today but at 27p as opposed to 24p he paid yesterday for 35,000.
Nice to see he has a spare £360.00 to lose but hardly a good sign in terms of astute financial acumen from a man who needs to oversee austerity and cost control.
More mixed messages as far as I can see.
===============================
The cynic in me eyes this with suspicion. Like the company boss who leases a fancy car as the wolves are circling.
If he was buying new shares and the money was going into the company I could understand but when the money is going into someone else’s pocket ❓
tomtom says:
May 8, 2014 at 2:07 pm
wottpi says:
May 8, 2014 at 1:45 pm
Seems like Chairman Somers has just bought 12,000 more shares today but at 27p as opposed to 24p he paid yesterday for 35,000.
Nice to see he has a spare £360.00 to lose but hardly a good sign in terms of astute financial acumen from a man who needs to oversee austerity and cost control.
More mixed messages as far as I can see.
===============================
The cynic in me eyes this with suspicion. Like the company boss who leases a fancy car as the wolves are circling.
If he was buying new shares and the money was going into the company I could understand but when the money is going into someone else’s pocket ❓
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Is it not more likely the shares are being bought for him in lieu of some payments or they are being bought in his name by the ”investors” for the feel good factor and to help boost the price?
I find it unlikely anyone in the inside would risk 1 penny of their own money.
tomtom says:
May 8, 2014 at 2:07 pm
I think they are just following Phil’s advice of yesterday 🙄
He often seems to know what they’re thinking, even before they have actually thought it 😀
And some say Phil just posts any old stuff and hopes it comes true! Pretty good guesswork if that’s all it was 😉
spanishcelt says:
May 8, 2014 at 2:22 pm
tomtom says:
May 8, 2014 at 2:07 pm
Agreed it is nothing more than a cynical ploy (as in why now?) to show that the guys in the Blue Room have confidence in what they are doing. At the very least it counters any claims from King and others that these folk don’t have a stake in the club.
Regardless of how he came by them the Chairman can say hand in heart he has a stake worth £11640 in the club/company or 29 times the price of a £400 season ticket.
Like a self-fulfilling prophecy the share price has bounced back 🙂
And true enough, rumours of 18-19,000 STs sold. Media manipulation?
Not all good news though:
Anyone know the numbers signed up to Ibrox1972? I wonder how fans can trust in DK… Personally I wouldn’t trust him with a wind up toy.
What a sharp cookie Mr Somers is. Clearly a top notch businessman.
One day he ‘buys’ 35k shares at 24p and then a few days later he ‘buys’ 12k at 27p.
From which individual or institution did he ‘buy’ them?
Anyone else think it might be pass the parcel for grown ups with no money changing hands but merely the registration of 47k shares in his name?
Only an opinion,like, but it all boosts the propaganda war what with the crowds now allegedly besieging the Ibrox ticket office with loadsa money.
Para Handy says:
May 8, 2014 at 9:55 am
Was up in Glasgow this weekend for a charity dinner and caught up with a lot of people at my cricket club. I took a straw poll of the Ibrox season ticket holders (of which there are many) and not one of the ten I asked are renewing…
=====================
That is very interesting PH.
Admittedly, your poll was amongst perhaps a very small, very specific demographic, [i.e. those Scots who find cricket an exciting sport 😉 ].
But even if your 0 out of 10 translated into a larger sample size to say 5 out of 10, then that is still a major problem for TRFC.
Aside from DK and his “Trust my Trust” nonsense and with fans now indicating that they will choose the ‘sensible option’, to pay as you go at the gate – then surely TRFC will have to make a decision sooner rather than later – and whilst they may still have options available ?
Albion Rovers offer a ‘pay what you can’ season ticket … from as little as £10 http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/08/albion-rovers-pay-what-you-can-season-ticket?CMP=twt_gu
mungoboy says:
May 8, 2014 at 3:06 pm
What a sharp cookie Mr Somers is. Clearly a top notch businessman.
One day he ‘buys’ 35k shares at 24p and then a few days later he ‘buys’ 12k at 27p.
From which individual or institution did he ‘buy’ them?
Anyone else think it might be pass the parcel for grown ups with no money changing hands but merely the registration of 47k shares in his name?
Only an opinion,like, but it all boosts the propaganda war what with the crowds now allegedly besieging the Ibrox ticket office with loadsa money.
—————————————————————————————–
Certainly it looks like a public relations stunt. However, the fact the deal is coming through on broker websites suggests the deal was conducted via the Stock Exchange, rather than privately. Any director selling shares would also have to notify the market.
StevieBC says:
May 8, 2014 at 3:13 pm
1 0 Rate This
Para Handy says:
May 8, 2014 at 9:55 am
Was up in Glasgow this weekend for a charity dinner and caught up with a lot of people at my cricket club. I took a straw poll of the Ibrox season ticket holders (of which there are many) and not one of the ten I asked are renewing…
=====================
That is very interesting PH.
Admittedly, your poll was amongst perhaps a very small, very specific demographic, [i.e. those Scots who find cricket an exciting sport ].
But even if your 0 out of 10 translated into a larger sample size to say 5 out of 10, then that is still a major problem for TRFC.
———————————–
Not as small as you think, Stevie. 😛
Actually, those asked included people from many walks of life and different social classes (if you will forgive the term) and they all come from families that go back a number of generations. While the unanimity could be misleading (two had wives who had just produced the next Mike Dennes), the sense of “just had enough” was plain to read.
Just a quick question… could the Somers share purchases be linked to driving up the share price to a targeted level that will allow them to price a new snap share issue higher than they could have done when the shares were heading towards record lows? I know nothing about the darks arts of capitalism but it strikes me that artificially inflating the share price enables them to raise significantly more through the new rights issue than would previously have been possible.
Young scottish manager in demand:
@OHenleyAlex: Breaking – Dundee United has confirmed the club has denied Blackpool permission to speak to manager Jackie McNamara.
StevieBC says:
May 8, 2014 at 3:13 pm
But surely the investors have promised to make-up any shortfall ❓
Further to that earlier post and with the aid of my trusty calculator – if, for the sake of argument, they have 40million shares to issue then the difference between pricing at 20p and 15p is a useful £2million (£8m-£6m).
While it all helps it does seem a long way short of the £30million+ they reckon they need to mount a substantial challenge.
Nothing to stop anyone buying shares…to do so to deliberately manipulate the price is iffy but hard to prove I’d guess?
@OHenleyAlex: Jackie McNamara flattered by the interest but has no plans to leave United
ecobhoy says:
May 8, 2014 at 4:51 pm
StevieBC says:
May 8, 2014 at 3:13 pm
. . . with fans now indicating that they will choose the ‘sensible option’, to pay as you go at the gate – then surely TRFC will have to make a decision sooner rather than later – and whilst they may still have options available?
But surely the investors have promised to make-up any shortfall ❓
=================================================
[Assuming you are not teasing… 🙄 ]
IIRC, our esteemed Court Reporter John Clark(e) recorded that when the judge asked the TRFC QC whether he was ‘confirming an undertaking’ wrt to institutional investors agreeing to fund a ST income shortfall, the QC apparently said “No” and shook his head. [?]
[I may have missed another source of confirmation of their plan to cover a shortfall.]
This, combined with Para Handy’s anecdotal evidence, and other updates from TRFC fans sites//groups could indicate that institutional investors may have to pour in significant, additional funds.
Of course we don’t know what their ‘upper limit’ for financing is, but it looks like they may have to dig deep to keep the football subsidiary operational.
But will they ?
Glasgow based debt recovery firm issues blog article on Imran Ahmed case.
Surprise Surprise…Glasgow Rangers and Pre-Judgment Remedies
The ‘goings on’ at Ibrox have been making the sports’ headlines for many years.
Now it’s the turn of the debt recovery lawyer to shine a more prosaic light on the latest set of legal proceedings taken against the club.
Imran Ahmed is not a happy man. A former director of the club, he claims he is owed £620,000 in compensation from Rangers by way of commission of 5% on commercial contracts negotiated by him. The club dispute these sums are due. He has raised court action against them and attempted to arrest (freeze) sums due to Rangers “on the dependence” of the action. His argument is that the club’s finances are so precarious that the threat of insolvency means that if the judge allowed the arrestment Ahmed would have some security for the sums alleged is due by Rangers to him.
What is Arrestment on the Dependence?
Arrestment on the dependence is a provisional measure which may be taken prior to decree (judgment) against the defender’s property in order to secure the creditor’s claim. If the court grants the arrestment, in addition to security for the sums sued for, it may well act as a ‘spur to payment’ towards achieving early settlement of the court action.
The effect of an arrestment on the dependence is to “freeze”, or to create a nexus, over moveable property, usually over cash, owed by the third party arrestee to the debtor. If the arrestee makes over the arrested funds to the debtor without the creditor’s consent then there may well be an obligation to account for these to the creditor.
Part 6 of the Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Act 2007 went a significant way towards identifying this common law remedy. Before a Court will grant the arrestment they have to be satisfied:
the creditor must have a prima facie case in the writ/summons which, if the averments are proven to be true, will lead to a successful action;
the creditor has to be able to show a specific need for the remedy;
there has to be a hearing before a judge; and
there has to be the ability for the debtor to make application for recall.
One way of establishing a ‘specific need for the remedy’ is for the creditor to show there is a real and substantial risk of the debtor frustrating enforcement of a decree by becoming insolvent.
So why was Ahmed Unsuccessful?
Much of the argument concerned the uncertainty over season ticket sales. Ahmed argued their low take-up by fans, many of whom were withholding their purchase, created a risk of insolvency. However Ranger’s counsel argued that even if their sale did slump other funds were available to avoid the prospect of the club going into administration.
What did the Court Decide?
Following an investigation into the club’s business plan, which included proposals for external funding, Lord Armstrong said he was informed that institutional investors had a “good degree of confidence” in the management and were fully aware of the difficulties. “It is in effect confirmation that the defender is financially secure and will remain so for the foreseeable future”.
Conclusion
This high profile decision illustrates that whilst arrestment on the dependence is possible, if the application is opposed it is insufficient to show that the debtor is merely in financial difficulty. The creditor will have to give additional evidence to prove that the prospect of insolvency is a real possibility.
However, if the application is unopposed, as many are, the bar may not be set so high. For example, in the Sheriff Court, proof of insolvency may well be satisfied if the creditor can provide a debtor’s bounced cheque or a statement from the debtor that they have insufficient funds to satisfy the debt. It very much depends who is hearing the case with there being no ‘hard and fast’ criteria set.
Hello everyone, I’m new to this site and thought I would put forward something that has been in my mind for sometime.
This concerns the outcome of the NET Tribunal, and its effect on BDO in their liquidation process.
IF the tribunal find in favour of HMRC will the revenue be satisfied with the precedent that will then be set, or will they pursue the tax outstanding from the individuals concerned?
This verdict would clarify the outstanding debt for BDO. If however, the Tribunal go the other way, the debt situation would be at a lower sum.BDO could then call in the “loans” to achieve a better result for the creditors. At the same time HMRC May pursue the same individuals for unpaid tax incurred due to those people receiving a “benefit in kind”.
Forgive me if I have repeated something you have discussed before, but I feel that BDO are waiting for the verdict before proceeding.
If I am correct, the ENTers are in a bit of a catch 22 situation. I hope this is readable, as it is my first attempt, and I am unsure of the geography
On the matter of proper lawful governance a conversation with a couple of supporters outside the Scottish bubble prompted this.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=15231&cpage=6#comment-2164171
Blue Order rep on SSB(I know) claims TRFC have only sold 1800 STs at this time against 15,000 at the same time last season.
Is this what “slower,rather than lower” means?.
Somebody tell me I`m wrong
From JC Eco CM take analysis – JC Record;
– IAs case stumbled on `statements` to the effect
– that future investors would make up any ST shortfall that may occur
– Hence IAs action unsupported as not proven [sufficiently?]
The Judge will assess information presented in Court
But why the IA case founded mainly on STs shortfall ? – Why no overall high / med / low cash flow projections?
– With the `intra-company` 19m sort of friendly interest free `debt`?
– factored into said projections
[IAs Simple Simon Story still not sitting right]
Cut to the quick
There was qualified but presented confidence wrt current `investors` meeting any shortfall
– Could `investors` be buying [shares] (preferential) into this `intra-company` `interest free` `19m `debt`?
Because if they are – ST bears can forget about football they want
And why is this 19m a `debt` – where did that come from? – 99% `wages`?
Doesn’t look right that 19m – and not a feature of PR efforts
How is that to be paid back? – 5 years – 10?
Sorry if I`m wrong 😉
Eco – you have mail.
Hugh Keevins new term as of tonight. Rangers were relocated to the 3rd div. How do you come up with such a term and have the neck to say it on live radio. Embarrassing does not do it credit. No pun intended.
valentinesclown says:
May 8, 2014 at 7:18 pm
Hugh Keevins new term as of tonight. Rangers were relocated to the 3rd div.
========================================================
I thought he was due to be ‘relocated’ to a pasture…? :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:
Valentines clown:
Sadly, Shug has used ‘relocated’ several times in the past when describing their presence in the bottom tier of Scottish Football.
I think he always thought it was a clever way of getting round the thorny problem.
I used to think people got relocated to either Cumbernauld or East Kilbride!
oddjob says:
May 8, 2014 at 5:56 pm
IF the tribunal find in favour of HMRC will the revenue be satisfied with the precedent that will then be set, or will they pursue the tax outstanding from the individuals concerned?
=================
I guess you’re referring to the EBT loans. BDO have no claim on that money, since the loans came from a Jersey trust, not from any UK company. The money was put into the trust by RFC, but once put into the trust, that money has gone for good. I’m pretty sure that there is no way of recovering money from the Jersey trust. All that HMRC want from this case is a legally binding precedent. Any money recoveries will be from the individuals who received the “loans”. Assuming that they didn’t include the sums on their personal tax returns, of course.
mungoboy says:
May 8, 2014 at 3:06 pm
What a sharp cookie Mr Somers is. Clearly a top notch businessman. One day he ‘buys’ 35k shares at 24p and then a few days later he ‘buys’ 12k at 27p. From which individual or institution did he ‘buy’ them?
Anyone else think it might be pass the parcel for grown ups with no money changing hands but merely the registration of 47k shares in his name? Only an opinion,like, but it all boosts the propaganda war what with the crowds now allegedly besieging the Ibrox ticket office with loadsa money.
===========================
Well there’s one thing for sure and that’s whoever he paid not a penny went into Rangers. Why did he buy them?
At a guess perhaps the new PR said how can you expect fans to buy STs when you as chairman don’t have a single share in the club and added: ‘ How do you explain to the fans the difference between you and DK?’
Of course maybe another share-owning director or even a major shareholder put the same question to Mr Somers.
The other possibility is that not having any shares in the club means he could lose out on the opportunity of receiving any of the shares which can legally be offered to existing shareholders without the need for an egm vote.
So perhaps his purchase is a straw in the wind that shares are going to be offered soon and as institutional shareholders will also be offered them then – if they take-up some or all of their allocation – then that would sort-of satisfy the sort-of guarantee given to the court in the IA case.
I don’t think Somers needed to buy 47K shares to drive the price up as trading is so light in these shares that I have often watched just a handful changing hands have a significant effect on their price.
One thing’s for sure IMO and that’s that Somers will have a good reason for making his purchase and I would truly be surprised if he ended-up losing money on the deal 💡
GoosyGoosy says:
May 8, 2014 at 7:24 pm
0 0 Rate This
Guys
In the real world stock market Spivs are hard at work most days trying to legally rig the market in their shares
So nothing is new when you examine RIFC trades in recent days
All this Director share buying stuff is just routine manipulation by the Spivs
It used to be that shares went up when demand was high and down when demand was low
Not so with Spiv Cos
Two Spivs use the same Spiv Broker to transfer shares to each other .The transaction is meaningless since the shares came from the same pot but were fronted by different Spivs
The “Selling” Price?
Its what the two Spivs agree it should be
The “Buying” Price?
Its what the two Spivs agree it should be
Dont take my word for it
Ask someone who has a share dealing account to do a “pretend” sell of the same number of RIFC shares that the Spivs shuffled around this week
By that I means go through the motions of an online “Sell” but dont press the “Sell” button at the last minute. Just before that point the “offer to buy” share price will appear on the screen
Compare this price with what the share was apparently being sold at in the previous hour or so
You will get a rude awakening
All of a sudden there appears to be nobody willing to replicate the high selling price that the last Spiv Seller got
The best price on offer has dropped when some non Spiv tries to sell
Ecobhoy…you have PM…and ye gods does my brain ache!
neepheid says:
May 8, 2014 at 7:27 pm
oddjob says:
May 8, 2014 at 5:56 pm
IF the tribunal find in favour of HMRC will the revenue be satisfied with the precedent that will then be set, or will they pursue the tax outstanding from the individuals concerned?
=================
I guess you’re referring to the EBT loans. BDO have no claim on that money, since the loans came from a Jersey trust, not from any UK company. The money was put into the trust by RFC, but once put into the trust, that money has gone for good. I’m pretty sure that there is no way of recovering money from the Jersey trust. All that HMRC want from this case is a legally binding precedent. Any money recoveries will be from the individuals who received the “loans”. Assuming that they didn’t include the sums on their personal tax returns, of course.
=========================================
Might be worth just adding Neepheid that the reason they want the precedent – which I know you are aware of – is so that all the other UK Companies who operated the schemes including many English football clubs quickly pay HMRC the back-tax which becomes payable. Same scenario with the AAM case and DOS of course.
If HMRC lose the UTT then I think it’s a certaintly they will appeal again although if the Murray Companies and Rangers lose then I’m not so sure they will appeal although it will all be down to the bank at the end of the day I would imagine.
Eco,
Take your points but if Somers has been given a ‘riddy’ about not having any shares or is anticipating a sale of further shares to existing shareholders only then why buy two tranches of shares at different prices two days apart?
Surely one purchase would have covered either base?
Still think it’s an artificial pass the parcel manoeuvre, but what do I know about the City and shares etc?
With regards to a potential appeal from Murray companies / Rangers if they lose the UTT, would this decision be down to BDO and be taken based on whether it was likely to generate more money for creditors?