Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?

Avatar ByBig Pink

Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?

A consortium led by David Low has been in talks with Sir Tom Farmer seeking to purchase Hibernian Football Club. The story has been embargoed for a few weeks, but David agreed to speak to TSFM to give us an exclusive interview and provide us with information about his intentions for the Edinburgh club.

Highlights of the interview include the similarities and differences between the Hibs situation and the one he found at Celtic Pak in 1994; how Scottish Football’s “new level playing field” as Low calls it has created an opportunity for a club like Hibs to be the main challenger to Celtic for honours; the contrast of his consortium’s approach to that of the recent debacle at Ibrox; the role of the fans at every level of the club; the future of Allan Stubbs and Leanne Dempster; and the journey back to the Premiership.

Low is frank about his reputation as a well-known Celtic fan, but highlights his Hibbee credentials and his affection for the club, eschewing the “I was always a Hibbee” line taken by so many people seeking to ingratiate themselves with the locals at various clubs.

Certainly, the experience and finance rolling around Low’s consortium is something that any club could do with, but the fans are crucial to their involvement and interest.

He says he won’t go ahead with the purchase unless the fans are behind them.

“Fans have never been so powerful as they are today, especially with the advent of social media like TSFM”

“We have seen in recent years what a body of fans are capable of when they re together”

“We want to have that togetherness at Hibs, because the only way forward is to have trust between the boardroom and the fans, you only have to look at the levels of distrust between board and fans at Rangers to see that it is a recipe for disaster”


powered by podcast garden

Podcast Download Link

ITunes Link

 

About the author

Avatar

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.

2,528 Comments so far

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on9:56 pm - Sep 5, 2014


John Clark says:
September 5, 2014 at 9:24 pm

scapaflow says:
September 5, 2014 at 8:30 pm
‘…Seriously, can any of the legal types see any obvious errors today?’
——–
Lord Stewart asked Summers on what basis was he appealing-on fact, or law. On both, said Summers. Not enough weight given to Wallace’s affidavit, and not enough consideration of the ‘reasonableness’ specified in the relevant section of the Act. [ This is my paraphrasing,but I think it’s essentially accurate]`
Mr McBrearty’s opinion of the aplication for leave to appeal was that there would appear to be little chance of an appeal succeeding because the tests required for a decision on the risk ( not ‘certainty’) of insolvency had been met, and the ‘reasonableness’ of how that risk was to be dealt with was at His Lordship’s absolute discretion, having heard the evidence of the facts, not merely the opinions, the ‘I believes’ and the ‘it is expected thats’ and there are ‘ongoing negotiations with potential investors’, that make up Mr Wallace’s affidavit.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Wasn’t Wallace’s affidavit somewhat fatally undermined by the statement about going concern included in the AIM announcement of the rights issue? No amount of ifs, maybes and perhaps’s will trump that without clear contradictory evidence. From what I read, none was presented by Mr Summers.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:08 pm - Sep 5, 2014


wottpi says:
September 5, 2014 at 9:49 pm
‘… I note it was the BBC’s Brian McLaughlin who was at coal face today giving licence payers value for money with the blow by blow account of proceedings when no one else seemed to be bothered.’
——-
That’s true, wottpi. There was no other press or other media person there.

The BBC was slated by Summers for a web-piece that had , he said, falsely inferred from the fact that a share offer was to be made that there must be a crisis, or that the fact that the share offer was not underwritten meant that ‘deadlines’ had been missed or that it was in danger of failing, and of their treating the ‘Presentation’ made to potential investors by Mr Wallace as constituting any kind of commitment as to dates by which things would happen and so on..
And there was a side-swipe at the fact that details of the ‘Presentation’ had been leaked to the Beeb, which should, he implied, know better than to use such material.
( I don’t recollect seeing that piece

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:12 pm - Sep 5, 2014


Castofthousands says: September 5, 2014 at 9:43 pm
—————–
There were 3 share issue pre IPO. The first was the Green, Ahamad, Righard Hughes BP, Margarita etc. That raised enough to but the club.

The 2nd and 3rd issues provided the working capital until the IPO. The 2nd issue included Craig Mather, Malcolm Murray, Chris Morgan and McCoist. The 3rd phase included Ashley, Laxey, Eurovestech, and Gorbon

Laxey’s initial 1M shares were purchased at £1 a share, hence they sought recompense from Green because the IPO price was 70p.

I have tracked the shareholdings of the initial investors from CF docs and the major shareholders from regulatory disclosures.
Laxeys holdings have gone up as follows:
1,000,000 1.52%
3,250,000 4.94% 12/08/2013
4,250,000 6.46% 15/08/2013
7,578,672 11.52% 20/11/2013 (3.33M from Beaufort Securities)
8,292,957 12.60% 24/12/2013 (714K from Green)

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on10:14 pm - Sep 5, 2014


scapaflow says:
September 5, 2014 at 9:21 pm

The Lady doth protest too much: Rangers statement

“RANGERS Football Club has tonight released the following statement:

“Further to the Stock Exchange announcement regarding the court action taken by Imran Ahmad against Rangers, whatever the outcome of the court process, we agree with Judge Lord Stewart when he told the court: ‘This does not mean to say that insolvency is an actuality or is going to happen.’” ”

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/7611-club-statement
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
So we had the RIFC PLC statement to the AIM and now we’ve had the TRFC Ltd statement.

I wish they would make it clear when using “Rangers Football Club” or “Rangers” when commenting on financial rather than football matters, which particular company it is that is behind it or if it a statement on behalf the group to clearly say so.

No wonder poor Ally gets confused or upset when asked to comment on financial matters.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:16 pm - Sep 5, 2014


CoT – The share percentages above are based on today’s total of 65.8M shares in circulation. (there were only 33.4M pre IPO)

1M shares was 2.99% of the initial 33.4M

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:28 pm - Sep 5, 2014


Castofthousands says:
September 5, 2014 at 9:43 pm
‘…when so many factors have been pointing at things not forming up satisfactorily have Laxeys got more heavily involved? They have made their move with eyes wide open. I think they have to be part of any end game. Any finance they have advanced must be in pursuit of this end.’
———
I’m inclined to agree, not because I have any special understanding of these matters, but only on the basis of Laxey Partners traditional modus operandi.They buy into failing businesses , get control on the Board, and push for a different and more immediate profit from the assets.They have operated in europe, apparently quite extensively, in this way.
I regret that I cannot immediately cite particular examples ( or even remember where my amateur researches had led me),but I feel that, like the scorpion, they are doing pretty much what they do because that’s what the do- and over the same kind of time-frame , between a year or so and five or so years.
Having said that, I’m damned if I can work out how they can make the kind of profit they would normally expect to make from the assets in this case, given that they tend not to think in terms of ten or twenty year plans.
Ibrox stadium and Auchenhowie can be expected to have little value as development sites for many years, if at all. And the profit from rental of a couple of sports facilities? Would that be worth all the hassle?

View Comment

Avatar

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on10:33 pm - Sep 5, 2014


John Clark says:
—————————————–
Many thanks for being there today John.
Great work.

View Comment

Giovanni

GiovanniPosted on10:39 pm - Sep 5, 2014


nickmcguinness says:
September 5, 2014 at 9:51 pm

Nick,

Thanks for that. I didn’t know what it meant but I assumed it was probably garbage hence my question. It was from CRO after all!

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on10:46 pm - Sep 5, 2014


justshatered says:
September 5, 2014 at 7:06 pm

Things must be really bad……. even the judiciary are finding against ‘The Rangers’!!!!
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Has the OCNC debate now reached that high?

Did they expect to turn up, go through the motions and get a favourable decision as has happened so often and inexplicably in the past?
That would explain the amateur “Laxey Brothers” error, that even a Legia Warsaw employee would have noticed.
Someone posted recently that every TFRC game in the SPFL Premier, should they ever get there, would have “You’re not Rangers anymore” sung endlessly.

Was today’s decision the first sign of the establishment doing the same?
Over to you SFA. Stewart? Campbell?

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on10:54 pm - Sep 5, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
September 5, 2014 at 10:33 pm
Rate This

John Clark says:
—————————————–
Many thanks for being there today John.
Great work.
///////////////////////////////////////////
I’m sure Phil speaks for all of us in thanking JC.
At least we did have BBC reporter there today, who seemed to be taking things in rather than the superficial skimming that we come to expect from the MSM.

When I scrolled down this page of comments to post, there was only one TD on the whole page and it was on Phil’s message above. How odd.

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on10:55 pm - Sep 5, 2014


easyJambo says:
September 5, 2014 at 10:12 pm

“I have tracked the shareholdings of the initial investors from CF docs and the major shareholders from regulatory disclosures.”
—————————–
Chapeau ej.

Whilst we’ve been narrating an impending catastrophe Laxey have been enriching themselves in share ownership. However they have been doing so whilst the price has been continually falling.

At Oct 13 the price would have been above 50p. Its looks like they could be sitting on a £1M loss over the period. Doesn’t seem like the actions of a financially savvy organisation. Charlotte did make a reference to potential ‘shorting’ of the share price so I’m not sure if they could have offset losses by taking side bets on them falling. I don’t think trade has been sufficiently brisk to have made this a viable strategy but I have little knowledge on these matters.

It does make me wonder.

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on11:05 pm - Sep 5, 2014


Thanks John Clark for being there.
You should be being reported on the BBC news at Ten!

I also wish we could arrange for you to be a fly on the wall whenever RCO and SR and their inner sanctum debate and agree what they will now do to cover their tracks from last time while extending more favours aplenty to the new new club which will emerge.
Because we all need a new dead club!

One day I hope they rue the day they ever tried to deal with Craigie and Charlie and come to think of it SDM.

In my career I can honestly say I never met with or dealt with anyone quite so ruthless as either and I’m glad they don’t have “secrets” on me like they have on the SFA cabal.
Because the truth will out.

And I think they are starting to realise that.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:07 pm - Sep 5, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
September 5, 2014 at 10:33 pm’
‘..Many thanks for being there today
—–
bhain me taitneamh as,a Pilib

View Comment

Avatar

ptd1978Posted on11:20 pm - Sep 5, 2014


The 1.2 million in the bank confuses me. Does this exclude the ring fenced ST cash, or was there some clever lawyerly wordplay to give a figure for funds available as opposed to the cash actually there.
One thought occurs, any chance RIFC will be going to Deloitte and asking to use the ST money for the arrestment? With an undertaking to actually pay Ahmad from other sources if he is ultimately successful, that could kick this can down the road for another couple of months.
Also, the comments made by Summers today do not appear to have been aimed at winning today. Seems to me that someone made a decision to use him to throw some PR guff out. What possible relevance does Europe have on a case being heard in two months.
I would have thought a savvy lawyer could have turned the info gained from anyone on the board on its head in less than five minutes. “Here are the CEO’s most recent announcements on the AIM m’lord. The facts revealed in them are almost contradictory to the information provided to you today by m’colleague on the board’s behalf. Does your lordship see it as reasonable that such a remarkable turnaround could be achieved in the middle of a significant corporate action – The Open Offer currently open to shareholders, and that all this good news would be withheld from the shareholders while they are being asked to make crucial financial decisions? I would submit that the evidence presented today has been sculpted to give a a very misleading impression.”

I would then do a bit of analysis between the board predictions at the last 2 hearings and the actual state of affairs. Just to ram it home that they’re not full of hope for the future. It’s something else they’re full of.

Last point. The suggestion was made that the nature of the contract IA had was a stitch up with CG. Something Summers backed away from quickly.
This goes to the reason I believe RIFC are in real trouble. It may be possible to unstitch a numbers of onerous contracts by demonstrating CG was at it. Problem is doing that in court would turn Wavetower’s weak claim into a suddenly very strong one. CG really did stitch this company up well.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:31 pm - Sep 5, 2014


Anyone got a calculator to work out the following sum.

£1.2m minus £1m minus £.5m minus £.625m minus x, where x equals an unbudgeted liability.

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on11:38 pm - Sep 5, 2014


easyJambo says:
September 5, 2014 at 10:12 pm

“7,578,672 11.52% 20/11/2013 (3.33M from Beaufort Securities)”
————————-
Beaufort were never listed as shareholders but I recall a post that identified them as share nominees (I think) for Blue Pitch and Margarita??

I wonder what price the Beaufort/Laxey deal was done for?

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on11:39 pm - Sep 5, 2014


Nope
All we have seen this week has been a smokescreen intended to frighten enough shareholders into getting out next week
IMO
The real aim is and always has been

To get the bottom feeding Spivs ownership up from 67% to 75 %

Thus enabling them to disapply pre emption rights for the rest

To be swiftly followed by RIFC increasing the share capital by zillions in order to award millions of freebie shares to the bottom feeders
Thus increasing their ownership to well over 90% at the expense of the minority
In ballpark terms this increases the value of assets held by the Spivs by around 30%-40%
Followed by sale of RIFC to some obscure offshore co and the inevitable Administration and liquidation of TRFC

View Comment

Avatar

Gym TrainerPosted on11:39 pm - Sep 5, 2014


wottpi says:
September 5, 2014 at 11:31 pm
2 0 Rate This

Anyone got a calculator to work out the following sum.

£1.2m minus £1m minus £.5m minus £.625m minus x, where x equals an unbudgeted liability.

Round numbers they’d be £1m plus x overdrawn.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:43 pm - Sep 5, 2014


Finloch says:
September 5, 2014 at 11:05 pm
‘…I also wish we could arrange for you to be a fly on the wall whenever RCO and SR and their inner sanctum debate ‘
——–
It would be better, of course, if there was no need for them to be secretive and/or conspiratorial.

They are once again possibly going to be faced with the financial collapse of a club.A very new club. But a club which has drawn to itself quite a huge chunk of the the football fan base in Scotland.A chunk that, one would expect, might be roused to ‘civic unrest’ if this newish club is properly dealt with in every respect if it does go into Administration.
It would absolutely NOT be acceptable that the penalty for that should be 15 points( on the grounds that it would be a ‘first’ insolvency event) IF simultaneously the offending club continued to be treated in all other respects as the same club which had suffered a previous insolvency event.

If it comes to the bit, the SFA and the SPFL will have to man up: either hit the offending club with a 25 point penalty, or strip them of their perceived status as a ‘continuation RFC’ with any entitlement to RFC(IL)’s history and (legitimate)record of football achievement.

They cannot be allowed to think for one moment that some kind of secret deal can again be made to protect the offending club.

If they are open and direct in regard to how they deal with the ‘new’club, they might find the courage to man up again, and strip RFC(IL) of all unfairly and sportingly illegal titles and trophies they won when the rule were broken about disclosure of ALL remuneration made to players.

To do this would require courage, and they would need the whole-hearted support of all the member clubs of the SFA and SPFL.

Having done these things, the present CEO and President of the SFA could gracefully resign, get the hell out, and football life in Scotland could begin to get back on the right path:sporting-integrity vindicated, and sound , truthful,financial accounting , no cheating, the order of the day.
Is that too much to ask, I ask?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:50 pm - Sep 5, 2014


ptd1978 says:
September 5, 2014 at 11:20 pm
‘.The 1.2 million in the bank confuses me. Does this exclude the ring fenced ST cash, or was there some clever lawyerly wordplay to give a figure for funds available as opposed to the cash actually there.’
——–
Judge Stewart asked, and was specifically told ( there had been a half-hour adjournment to let Mr Summers phone Nash) that there was £1.5 million actually in cash at the bank.

View Comment

wildwood

wildwoodPosted on12:00 am - Sep 6, 2014


Another very intriguing and enlightening day. I firmly believe that from the magnificent regular posters we have here we get at that elusive entity – the truth. It’s a wonderful thing.

I’m biased somewhat in that I genuinely wish to see no team in blue playing out of Govan ever again but that aside, I firmly believe what we have here to be the truth, on the money , straight down the middle.

I have no sympathy / am eternally baffled by an entire support and MSM who just don’t get it.. We’ve mentioned a few times that the bears are waking up and even recently Phil has said that he thinks they’re finally getting it. Well, you know I don’t think they are and I don’t think they ever will.

Question for Ally at next weeks presser. How does it feel to know that the clumpany, while still haemorrhaging money at an alarming rate, barely have enough to pay YOU for the season – never mind the rest of the staff, the maintenance bills, the match day costs etc?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:25 am - Sep 6, 2014


Just as a bit of light relief afore I go to bed, during the very short lunch break at today’s proceedings ( Lord Stewart should have been on leave from this afternoon ( no skulking off like Mr Shackleton of Daniel Stewart when there was urgent business! And he will be on leave on Tuesday next, when the ‘leave to appeal’ is being considered), I was reading a copy of the rules about solicitors’ fees and such like. I read that travelling time may be charged at -wait for it- £35.00, per QUARTER hour!Must make traffic jams quite desirable for our legal bods as they travel to meet clients or attend court! Or is that unfair? Discuss, heatedly, with your lawyer friends! 😀

View Comment

Avatar

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on12:52 am - Sep 6, 2014


The Cat NR1 says:
September 5, 2014 at 10:54 pm
—————————————————–
Regardless of the content of my posts I always seem to attract some TD.
Ah well…

View Comment

Avatar

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on12:55 am - Sep 6, 2014


John Clark says:
September 5, 2014 at 11:07 pm
——————————————–

Maith thu mo chara

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on1:10 am - Sep 6, 2014


John c
Thanks from all of us. Its the wee insights you give that makes the story whole ad it were. Pencils 4 twitter nil.
BTW your final comment, how can Summers fees be paid? Will be circa 100k.

View Comment

Avatar

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on1:17 am - Sep 6, 2014


wildwood says:
September 6, 2014 at 12:00 am
——————————————————–
I think that the denial phase is over.
The Ibrox clientele-certainly the online fraternity-do realise that the situation at RIFC/TRFC is very serious indeed.
Moreover I think they are correct to be concerned.

View Comment

Avatar

James DolemanPosted on1:39 am - Sep 6, 2014


On the laughable conspiracy theory that Sandy’s interview affected the judgement today. Judge’s are not influenced by media reports, they look at the evidence presented to them (or they start losing in the court of appeal)

RFC said they had £1.2M in the bank and undisclosed liabilities. There is no way a judge could not rule for the complainant on that basis, no matter what Easdale said to Jackson.

Sorry for the rant, just my 2c

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:42 am - Sep 6, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
September 6, 2014 at 12:52 am

5

0

Rate This

________________________________

Phil,
I’d like to say first of all that I disagree with you utterly. Your views on Scottish independence I feel are based on a vision that belongs in the past of a ‘Unionist UK’ rather than a federal UK competing in a global world.
At a time when Europe should be banding together to secure all our kids futures and press its case and sell its wares in a global economy composed of Far eastern growth, spats about whether the same bunch of self interested lemonheads should be telling us what to do out of a London or Edinburgh parliament are frankly irrelevent, divisive and flaming well counterproductive.
My view is to carry any weight you want the maximum number of votes in as many fora as possible, (and that means a scottish cabinet running westminster, like we had from 1997 is the ideal), but alas we have to accept the political reality that this can’t always be the case! ya da ya… wrong forum

Anyhow…
What I would like to say to you… as a political opponent… is the following:

Your credentials as a journalist are resounding and astounding.
I read for a you for a reason.
I learns stuff that is factual, relevent and otherwise inacessible.
I shall repeat that phrase:
‘factual, relevent and otherwise inacessible.’

I know of know of no better phrase to describe quality journalism.
‘Impartial’ would be a bonus. But (as a Scientist) I say ‘if its ‘factual’, its impartial. Now ‘purported’ impartiality has been whoring itself a bit of late under the guise of ‘journalistic balance# : Well from where I stand it can go and stick its dick in a vice. Facts are ultimately impartial. Representing facts along non facts and lettting the viewer/listener/reader decide is not impartiality.

You have been utterly factual wrt RIFC and Rangers before it. You are the best friend Rangers fans didn’t know they had.

They should make you an honorary member of their supporters club.
But they won’t.

And you are fundamentally wrong (imo) on Scottish independence. Although I can see where you are coming from and why.

Thanks.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on1:43 am - Sep 6, 2014


Phil yes certainly the sensible heads on RR see doom on the horizon, seem fatigued with it all and no wonder.

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on1:45 am - Sep 6, 2014


I’m not a betting man, however if I was laying odds , this is how i see it.

4/6 Fav : share issue successful , just . Which allows the group of shareholders who narrowly failed to get the resolution below passed in December 2013 , to bring it back to the table and get it through.

Special Resolutions
10. To renew the Directors’ authority for the disapplication of pre-emption rights

Evens : Share issue fails . Laxey offer emergency loan secured against Auchenhowie or Ashley buys the image rights and Internet broadcast rights for £1 plus a loan of £3.6 million secured against Murray Park

2/1 Share issue fails , administrator appointed.

100/1 : Share issue a success, followed by issue of new shares with Dave King investing £30 million

View Comment

Avatar

Paulmac2Posted on2:16 am - Sep 6, 2014


I think JC’s court reporting today mentioned the bank cash as 1.5 million they have.

With 620k being arrested…Mr. Latham being owed 1.5 Million..snother Mr. Easdale owed somehere…are the SFA or the SPFL seeking a bond to cover the completion of league fixtures…or at least had a dussion with the club?

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on2:48 am - Sep 6, 2014


GoosyGoosy says:
September 5, 2014 at 11:39 pm

Nope

The real aim is and always has been
To get the bottom feeding Spivs ownership up from 67% to 75 %
Thus enabling them to disapply pre emption rights for the rest
To be swiftly followed by RIFC increasing the share capital by zillions in order to award millions of freebie shares to the bottom feeders
Thus increasing their ownership to well over 90% at the expense of the minority
In ballpark terms this increases the value of assets held by the Spivs by around 30%-40%
Followed by sale of RIFC to some obscure offshore co and the inevitable Administration and liquidation of TRFC
============================

Seriously: GG I do appreciate your posts, as they are typically clear, perfectly plausible, and usually from a spiv perspective – which makes me, [we ?], scratch my head and then say: “Ahhh…”

Jokingly: are you Craig Whyte ?! 😆

View Comment

melbournedee

melbournedeePosted on6:18 am - Sep 6, 2014


So RIFC are in court to convince a learned judge that the Company’s financial position has improved since the previous hearing, and it emerges that the current cash balance is £1.2 million. We also learn that 23,361 season tickets have been sold.

IIRC, the only payment options available to season ticket holders were, cash or cheque, 4 monthly instalments from May to August or through Zebra Finance with 4 or 12 month instalments. I would expect the numbers choosing the finance options through Zebra to be a small minority, so the vast majority of season ticket proceeds should have been received by TRFC.

23,361 tickets @ £300 totals £7 million. Many on this forum and PMG have suggested that these proceeds are ring fenced and can’t be touched until games have been played.

If this is the case, why were these funds not mentioned during yesterday’s proceedings? With a potenial share issue of £3.6 million, these funds would surely have given the judge significant comfort that RIFC could continue trading until Mr Ahmad’s case is heard later this year and avoided the arrestment of a precious £620,000.

From the interim accounts to 31st December, operating expenses were £16 million for 6 months but includes £3 million for Rangers Retail, so £13 million for TRFC.

I simply can’t see how TRFC could have traded from 31st December, when the cash balance stood at £3.5 million, to the end of August with only the £1.5 million loan proceeds and pay at the gate attendances, commercial/media income. Remember, that Rangers Retail cash balance hasn’t been distributed yet as disclosed in the offer documentation.

I can only conclude that all the Season Ticket money has been spent, unless another, as yet undisclosed, source of finance has been tapped.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on7:41 am - Sep 6, 2014


John Clark says:
September 5, 2014 at 10:28 pm
11 0 Rate This

…. They buy into failing businesses , get control on the Board, and push for a different and more immediate profit from the assets.They have operated in europe, apparently quite extensively, in this way.
I regret that I cannot immediately cite particular examples ( or even remember where my amateur researches had led me),but I feel that, like the scorpion, they are doing pretty much what they do because that’s what the do- and over the same kind of time-frame , between a year or so and five or so years.
Having said that, I’m damned if I can work out how they can make the kind of profit they would normally expect to make from the assets in this case, given that they tend not to think in terms of ten or twenty year plans.
Ibrox stadium and Auchenhowie can be expected to have little value as development sites for many years, if at all. And the profit from rental of a couple of sports facilities? Would that be worth all the hassle?
———

John, you’re a star, but you don’t need me to tell you 😉

What you refer to above was massive news in this little country in the late ’80s and until ca. 1994.

It was basic ‘selskabstømning’, literally, ‘company emptying’. The guys behind it bought failing companies with capital in the bank but usually also a big tax liability. The cash was taken out but no tax was paid, I believe the money was parked in foreign accounts. This went on and on because of loopholes in the law (apparently, no one ever thought that people could be so devious in wee cosy Denmark).

Suffice to say, the tax authorities became very annoyed about this, not to mention the general public who got it served from the tabloids, among others. Most of us pay a fair bit of tax here but the benefits are obvious. However, if some folks are revealed as wide guys, no amount of sharp suits, trophey wives, fast cars and foreign addresses will endear them to the general tax-paying public in this country.

A change was made in the relevant laws and the taxman made quite a bit from subsequent court cases.

Of course, guys with no morals or any sense of social responsibility don’t give up that easy. Hybrid versions appeared. These usually involved continuing the company (a necessity according to the closed loophole) but created a web of minor companies to take on cleaning, transport, catering, you name it. These minor companies then used other cleverly setup companies, and before you know it, the web was so complex that actually getting to the bottom of it all was hugely difficult for the taxman. As you can imagine the more obscure parts of the tangled web paid no tax and the main company had such expenses that their tax liability was nominal, I expect.

Some leading Danes in these practices ended up in the UK. Westminster seems to have made it a more fertile place for this carry on than over here. At least one of the Danes was connected to this story way back.

The Ibrox situation looks, in some ways, a hybrid of a hybrid. Loads of money has already gone into the pockets of certain people. The choice of project made it a winner based on fan loyalty. Has anyone who’s come in the door not left pockets bulging?

And it goes on and on. Surprising thing was that the original IPO seems to have attracted bona fide investors. Isn’t it now a win/win for Charles and his pals? If it continues, the contracts Phil has told us about, and which are now coming to light, will provide an endless income stream. If it liquidates the properties can be sold, in time.

The true fans should have created a modest newco in 2012. In a just world, the assets of the previous club — stadium included — would have been sold to satisfy creditors. It’s hard to have any sympathy for Sevco Scotland. After marching through the leagues in triumph, lording it over ‘we diddy teams’ like playground bullies, the cost of triumph has to be paid, one way or another.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on8:29 am - Sep 6, 2014


A quick perusal of the paper shop this morning tells me it’s interesting that there isn’t a discernible spin job in any one direction this morning. The spivs expected yesterday, they possibly deliberately created it, the press however did not.

Imagine the scene:

Editor; heh keef, have you written the rangers piece yet?

Keef; (looks at empty email inbox) eh naw boss.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on8:37 am - Sep 6, 2014


Barca

Your odds basically come down to if the spivs fund the immediate offer, and why.

View Comment

Avatar

rhapsodyinbluePosted on8:55 am - Sep 6, 2014


Just deleted the’ notify me of follow-up comments by e-mail.

Came on here hoping to learn and because you call yourself ‘The Scottish Football Monitor.’

I have learned one thing, because of my allegiance better coming on here now and again otherwise it drags you down.

As one of your poster alluded to, no wonder many Rangers Supporters don’t put their heads above the parapet here.

Often it is a relentless gleefest and therefore loses what it attempts to portray and in my short tenure is 99% about one club.

View Comment

Avatar

EKBhoyPosted on9:10 am - Sep 6, 2014


rhapsodyinblue says:
September 6, 2014 at 8:55 am
——
I guess on here you are liable to find more information about what is going on at your club rather than the self serving pap of the SMSM who through their commercial love-in with all things Ibrox have provided covering fire for the next generation to have the keys ………

Pretty obvious that your ground and training complex will be sold off , (19th Sep?) to keep the lights on , failure to do that will mean an under-21 team at the stroke of a pen , and one thing that we all know about Rangers is that on pitch they will take every measure to ensure they are not subject to regular doings by the likes of Falkirk, Kilmarnock, Motherwell, sorry strike the last one.

Still, the bigger story is what are the vandals in the SFA doing about this , given the fragile commercial position if Scottish football, easy, sweet SFA.

You should concentrate your ire on the SFA and SMSM , can you seriously get antsy with folks on here , given the plethora of supremacist garbage that has wafted out of Ibrox the last few decades,

View Comment

Avatar

Paulmac2Posted on9:17 am - Sep 6, 2014


Rhaps

Now is your opportunity…as a TRFC fan…what would you like to discuss?

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:20 am - Sep 6, 2014


rhapsodyinblue says:
September 6, 2014 at 8:55 am

Hear what you say and understand how you feel. However as opposed to bleating on about us why not take up the challenge I offer to any Rangers fans coming on here.

Tell us how you see this mess getting sorted out and realistically where do you see Rangers in five years time?

With the exception of Ryan and a handful of other most Rangers fans fail to answer or simply go with the ‘ we will get back to the top because we have always been there’ type response.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:28 am - Sep 6, 2014


There are actually two stories this weekend (with apologies to, relatively speaking, more minor pieces at Ross county and killie. A team fraudulently (whether merited or not and if you check back you’ll see I said they should have been) placed into the leagues will, without more cash (begging -note MSM, begging- the question why would you invest) will fold three games into the season. Secondly our national team will I fear receive yet another footballing lesson. One factor links the two. I’ll help you out here, it isn’t RFC. So why not point your wrath in that direction instead.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on9:57 am - Sep 6, 2014


rhapsodyinblue says:
September 6, 2014 at 8:55 am

Just deleted the’ notify me of follow-up comments by e-mail.
====================================
I never felt the need to have that facility switched-on.

I think you may have missed the agenda of a lot of posters on here which btw IMO is closely aligned to the aims and objectives of the site.

However I speak only for myself when I say that any self-satisfaction I have about Rangers’ position in recent times isn’t actually borne out of any hatred or ill-will towards Rangers as such.

It – probably by proxy – is directed at the Scottish Football Authorities who have been up to their necks in corruption for decades to protect and advance the Establishment Club.

So every little thing that exposes their (Hampden suits btw) moral failures and destruction of Sporting Integrity in Scotland is another nail in their coffin and a step closer to the day when their corruption will be swept from Scottish Football.

Sadly for ordinary genuine football loving Bears their club is at the epicentre of a high percentage of the ills that beset the proper governance of the game in Scotland and they were placed on that pedestal by the SFA and other authorities.

It’s therefore not a surprise that Rangers attracts so much attention and comment and indeed hate from some posters however they get little support from regular posters and none from the Mods and that’s how it should be.

I think you should perhaps re-read all of the comments you have made and also look at the tone and content of responses to them. Might I suggest that you got to Rangers fans sites and make the same kind of posts as you have here but in support of Celtic.

I think I have a fair idea of the kind of stomach-churning filth and bile that would be directed at you which I know would bear no relation to the ‘treatment’ you or your club would receive here.

I am no Rangers hater and my dad was a Rangers supporter and many of his side of the family still are. I also used to argue on here that I supported Rangers working their way back to the top division and recognised the importance of the Blue£ to Scottish Football.

But that was in the days when many decent Bears had the dream of starting their journey anew from the bottom, doing their time and paying their dues and progressing through nurturing and developing their own youngsters.

Sadly Green recognised that dream as a dangers to his money-making potential and before it even began that hope was extinguished and we saw a return to the dark ages from a new breed of supporter who IMO don’t have an actual scoobie about supporting their club.

Lots of people prefer to forget that in that first season 25% of ST holderrs didn’t renew ( official RFC figure). Imagine 9,000 Bears walked away and the following year I think it was another 3-4,000. So a good chunk of the traditional Rangers support had gone before the start of the new club’s second season.

Since then the quality of football, rape of the club’s finances and music hall comedies taking place in the Board Room have lowered the club to the level of a joke and that’s one of the reasons why IMO that such a bitter civil war is ranging in the ranks while the spivs, as always, just continue garnering every penny they can extract from Ibrox.

Meanswhile the Football Authorities seem incapable of action to cleanse the running sore to football governance that Rangers has become. The suits are trapped by all the corrupt decisions made previously to give preferment to Rangers and ensure their supremacy in Scottish Football although nowadays that has slipped to merely trying to save them from extinction.

So forgive me if I express glee that those in Hampden who are the ringmasters to this circus and now trapped in the lions’ cage with ordinary supporters demanding answers and change and our main weapon is the internet which has destroyed the power of the SMSM and their PR Masters to keep us in ignorance of the facts and truth.

And that’s also the key to liberating Rangers fans intent on building a new club based on football and financial probity with all the old baggage cast aside. Of course the neanderthals want to retain the old ways and ‘Rightful Place’ mentality but they are becoming a total anachronism and their aims are more and more identified by ordinary fans as having nothing to do with football but just using club supporters to achieve political agendas.

It used to be much easier for them when Celtic was really the only ‘enemy’ but one thing which has happened with the ansence of Rangers from the top flight is that the twinned-duopoly with which most other clubs and supports viewed the Old Firm has changed IMO.

I now believe that a helluva lot of neutrals see clear differences between the two clubs in all sorts of ways. However it’s still early days as to where Rangers’ end-up and I firmly believe there might even be at least two clubs of that name playing football in Glasgow.

As a Celtic supporter I’ll be rooting for the baggage-free football orientated club and support because I know that’s will be the final step in clearing out Hampden and hopefully saving our once beautiful game for future generations.

View Comment

Avatar

Hoopy 7Posted on10:01 am - Sep 6, 2014


Good Morning
On a day when we should be discussing how Scotland will fare against Germany we are once again caught up in the fiasco that is Rangers.

The game against Germany will be a real test of how far we have come under GS.
Good luck.

It seems utterly incredulous that absolutely no reference was made to the Season Ticket money in court.
There is nothing but obfuscation and prevarication.

What is clear is that irrespective of the success of the share issue the entity taking to the football field is in a parlous state. It is completely insolvent and is reliant on being drip fed by it’s parent.
For the past couple of years RTC and TSFM have told the fans the truth, those in the driving seat at Ibrox have not.

If I were a Rangers fan I would want to know as a matter of urgency where the Season ticket money is before I would even buy a bovril(other drinks are available).

If the ST money has been used then not only have the fans been taken for another ride but RIFC/TRFC have deliberately misled the Court.

In the meantime our dear leaders who are charged with the governance of the game seem to be acting with their usual sense of urgency.

Sorry they are probably too busy enjoying a freebie in Germany to be bothered.
Maybe when they come back they will sort it out.
Maybe they tooth fairy and Santa Clause will save them the bother.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:14 am - Sep 6, 2014


ianagain says:
September 6, 2014 at 1:10 am

John c
Thanks from all of us. Its the wee insights you give that makes the story whole ad it were. Pencils 4 twitter nil.
BTW your final comment, how can Summers fees be paid? Will be circa 100k.
======================================================
I have no doubt that his fees were paid up-front in cash before he donned his wig 😎

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:16 am - Sep 6, 2014


Tooth fairy and Santa Claus?

Summers did say they were at advanced stages with two investors. Hmmmm!

Seriously, to rhaps, wot Eco said only shorter. And to show its a two way street, Eco (and to be fair you’ve been the most vocal in opposing this) if lawell continues down his recent diversion your team will easily slip back to the 2nd cheek from where I’m standing.

Re the season ticket monies that’s a difficult one. When the judge asks how much do you have he doesn’t expect to ask how much do you really have? If I was to bet I would say that was the ‘current account’ with season ticket funds only released from ‘client funds’ for the games played to date. From an RFC perspective I blumin well hope that’s the case!

View Comment

Avatar

Cygnus X-1Posted on10:18 am - Sep 6, 2014


So I’m out having a few beers and a catch up with the lads last night and inevitably the conversation turns to football. Like most people I know we’re mixed company, comprising 5 close mates since primary school with 3 CFC & 2 RFC fans. Myself, I come from a RFC supporting family & background, but was intoxicated by seeing Jimmy Johnstone on one wing, Bobby Lennox on the other & a young Kenny Dal in the middle of the park. From that moment, I turned away from the team of my Father and the rest is history.

The point of this background is to show the complete normality of knowing, being related to, working alongside fans of the opposite team and therefore unlike some of our recent bluenose correspondents on here, who believe(wrongly in my view), that there is some kind of vendetta against the oldco, I’d like to assuage of them of this. Indeed, some of my closest friends and family are RFC supporters, whom I love dearly

There said it 🙂

Moving on then. There was complete agreement round the table last night that the newco is completely & utterly buggered with no way back. My 2 RFC pals bought shares in the IPO, as well as being season ticket holders, so they have parted with serious money.Both were morose and could not see a way forward, because regardless of what happens, a significant amount of ordinary RFC fans won’t go away. They might become displaced, they might become scattered to the four winds, divided & leaderless, but nonetheless, they will still be out there somewhere, once the rubble sets on Ibrox stadium or what once remained of it.

And so the consensus was this. Start a new team, an amateur one obviously, call it Govan Rangers who will wear blue jerseys. Fill this young & new team with young players and encourage fans of the old RFC to get behind this new team and with a wee bit of fair investment, perhaps this team could develop into a new club that would unite the masses, but without the nasty stuff of dodgy songbooks and signing policies, tax dodges and general rule breaking.

This was the only way that we could see, that would offer a solution to the ongoing issues that befall this football club. The analogy we used last night is when your PC is corrupted with viruses that cannot be removed, then it’s better to wipe everything out & start again.

View Comment

justshatered

justshateredPosted on10:24 am - Sep 6, 2014


rhapsodyinblue says:
September 6, 2014 at 8:55 am

This is The Scottish Football Monitor where we aim to hold to account individuals, clubs, chairmen, and probably the most importantly, the authorities.

Our game, the sport we all profess to love, has been fundamentally damaged, possibly beyond repair, over the last 3 years through shoddy practice, possible criminality, covert dealings, and gross misconduct of those charged with governing our sport.

When an organisation, that is dependent on the goodwill of the paying public, holds that very public in complete disdain what do you propose we do?
Nothing?
Keep repeating everything will be alright?
Hope for the best?

The various assortment of individuals who have walked through the main doors at Ibrox over the last few years have betrayed not only your support but the whole of the game.

The fact that they have been abetted in this by the people supposed to protect the game is a shocking indictment on the powers that be.

The callous disregard for rules and indeed the creation of the “five way agreement” are testament to the corruption in the game.
The fact that the above goes almost completely unchallenged by the media in a modern democracy is another aspect of this scandal.

It is up to the support of your club to get up and do something although to be honest I think that train left the station a long time ago. Your club(s) spends more that it takes in and has done so for twenty years. There is no longer a bank, or apparent individual, willing to make up this shortfall. Until that reality is accepted this scandal will continue to fester. It is not going away. The new entity now seems to be in the hands of individuals who have no interest in your club or the wider sport in Scotland.
The whole sport in this country is being dragged to the depths by the continual problems surrounding one club. That we should have to continue to highlight the deficiencies within the administration instead of focusing on what is required to move our game forward.

We have many challenges facing our sport; chronic underfunding, the talent drain to the more lucrative leagues south of the border, the dismal track record of the national team in qualifying for major tournaments are the things we should be discussing but we are continually told by all that our game cannot move forward until there is a club named ‘The Ranger’ in the top league.

The statement is demeaning to every other club in the country. It belongs to an age that is gone if indeed it ever actually existed. Our sport is going through a massive transitional phase where teams are attempting to balance the books because banks are no longer lending the money the once did. Clubs are having to find new revenue streams, adapt, and become more community based.
I’m sure everyone, from the media to the administrators to the fans, want to start talking about football but that is not possible right now because there is a continued spectre at the table.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:29 am - Sep 6, 2014


I keep returning to ‘unbudgeted liability’ and wonder why when so much financial detail was being released why that wasn’t explained.

I keep wondering whether it could be the spent ‘ST money’ which was supposed to be released as a drip-feed on a match-by-match basis.

Even if it isn’t it seems strange to me that Rangers didn’t inform the court that they had x amount of dosh being released after every home game from a ring-fenced pool. that would actually bolster their argument that the club would survive financially.

And I really doubt that the judge would have dreamt for one second of seizing any of that ‘pool’ of ‘fan money’. Nope that might well have let to civil unrest so he wouldn’t have touched it and, in any case, it had the imprimatur that Deloittes had suggested/demanded that mechanism.

Therefore if it has all been spent then there’s a clear liability towards fans who are entitled to watch a set number of home games. But if it has been spent and there is no money available to ensure that the matches are played in my simplistic view that becomes an ‘unbudgeted liability’.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:37 am - Sep 6, 2014


John Clark says:
September 5, 2014 at 11:50 pm
ptd1978 says:
September 5, 2014 at 11:20 pm

‘.The 1.2 million in the bank confuses me. Does this exclude the ring fenced ST cash, or was there some clever lawyerly wordplay to give a figure for funds available as opposed to the cash actually there.’
——–
Judge Stewart asked, and was specifically told ( there had been a half-hour adjournment to let Mr Summers phone Nash) that there was £1.5 million actually in cash at the bank.
====================

I’m with John Brown on this one and demand to see the stigmata or even a copy of the bank statement would suffice.

Simples ❗ Or is it ❓

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:37 am - Sep 6, 2014


Castofthousands says: September 5, 2014 at 11:38 pm

easyJambo says: September 5, 2014 at 10:12 pm

“7,578,672 11.52% 20/11/2013 (3.33M from Beaufort Securities)”
————————-
Beaufort were never listed as shareholders but I recall a post that identified them as share nominees (I think) for Blue Pitch and Margarita??

I wonder what price the Beaufort/Laxey deal was done for?
================================
Beaufort held shares on behalf of a number of investors each of whom held less than the 3% notifiable interest (and still do although it is a different lot of shares that they own now), and have assigned proxy votes to Sandy Easdale. This notification details the situation.

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11783877

The share price at the time was 41.5p but I don’t know the deal price.

View Comment

Avatar

ptd1978Posted on10:39 am - Sep 6, 2014


RhapsodyinBlue
I actually agree that this blog can get a bit on triumphalist sometimes. For my taste at least. That said it is well moderated and there are a number if good reasons why it works the way it does.
1. This is a blog about football. Not the games themselves per se, but we are all – red, blue, green black, white, maroon, tangerine, amber, claret, whatever – linked by a love of the game and a desire to see it thrive as a sport. Many of the issues we discuss here are raised first on the internet and either ignored or misrepresented by the authorities and the Mainstream Sports (and business) media until such a time as they become crises or disasters. Given how far ahead of the story we can be and knowing how frustrating it is that the story may not be being covered for reasons that may not be compatible with journalistic ideals or holding high office in a sporting association, we naturally celebrate and give a big attaboy to the bloggers who got the story so far in advance of it going mainstream.
2. We’re football fans. We are capable of sitting down and having a nice drink with well met rivals, or of hurling the type of abuse reserved for games with bitter rivals. We don’t get that bad online, but the choice is yours. Engage with us and we all learn from each other, or poke criticism from the sidelines and have people take your words with caution for fear you are a troll.
3. We dwell on Rangers and The Rangers for a very good reason. They’ve been at it more than every other club in Scottish football put together. There are some stories about them which we look at and there is a concensus that try are not worth looking at too closely. CW still being involved, the secret underwriting rumour etc.
The big stuff though needs answered and we stick at it because questions that mainstream journalists have a duty to ask are being ignored, and the football authorities are also them being allowed to ignore them.
We do look at other stuff. The Celtic land deal was superbly dissected and revealed to be a tissue of fabrications and what-ifs. The fact remains when the rubbish is sifted out and we only have facts to base out analyses on, most of the stories that reflect on misapplied Scottish football governance and rule breaking have emanated from Ibrox.
3. I genuinely believe if there was a big story about Celtic running around, it would be covered here. Many would look at it with a heavy heart, but it would be looked at thoroughly and there would be plenty of contributors who would feel the need for a small revel in Celtic’s discomfort. That said most Celtic fans here are the kind of folk who would accept any such story with dignity (in spirit, not just as a word) and accept the damage their club did. I include PMGB in that. I believe he is a top class journalist and would continue to operate as such even if his story left him with a heavy heart about his football club.
The thing you’re not recognising is that no other football clubs are in a position to distort the game the way Rangers did. The authorities actually hold other clubs to account to some degree or other. While they might be tempted to let Celtic away with stuff because of the financial importance of the club, too many at Celtic still remember Farry-gate and the lack of help from any one other than Fergus McCann when the club almost died. There is no appetite to do what Rangers did.

You’re have a lot to contribute here. Please do so and by all means speak up if you think the blog is straying from it’s intended purpose, but keep it reasonable.

View Comment

Avatar

pau1mart1nPosted on10:46 am - Sep 6, 2014


I keep returning to ‘unbudgeted liability’ and wonder why when so much financial detail was being released why that wasn’t explained.

try a mistranslation from French again? well it worked before.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:48 am - Sep 6, 2014


CoT – Here is a December 2013 notification of a further 2M shares managed by Beaufort which formed part of the Sandy Easdale proxies.

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11800475

It means that Beaufort have over 5M shares proxied to Easdale.

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on11:22 am - Sep 6, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
September 6, 2014 at 12:55 am

John Clark says:
September 5, 2014 at 11:07 pm
——————————————–

Maith thu mo chara

———————

Mo Farah?

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Avatar

davythelotionPosted on11:31 am - Sep 6, 2014


The fundamental problem faced by the SMSM is one of perspective. Keevins et all believe that Scottish football ‘needs Rangers’. The standard of football in the top league would be better, money would be spent in Scotland, crowds would increase, TV companies would engage in a bidding war to show four games a year, Celtic would be compelled to spend eye-watering amounts of cash on marquee signings and pay them nose-bleeding wages, it would also make Celtic better!
Keevins is longing for a ‘never-was’ golden era of Scottish football. It may have been for him and his fellow pundits, fed on lamb, drenched in the finest reds, plyed with tales of moonbeams.
The people who really own Rangers see only cash, for a pittance they have land, retail outlets, TM’s and an unquestionning customer base who continue to stump up cash in the mistaken belief that ‘they’ll be back where they belong’.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on11:58 am - Sep 6, 2014


rhapsodyinblue says:
September 6, 2014 at 8:55 am
15 45 Rate This

Just deleted the’ notify me of follow-up comments by e-mail.

Came on here hoping to learn and because you call yourself ‘The Scottish Football Monitor.’

I have learned one thing, because of my allegiance better coming on here now and again otherwise it drags you down.

As one of your poster alluded to, no wonder many Rangers Supporters don’t put their heads above the parapet here.

Often it is a relentless gleefest and therefore loses what it attempts to portray and in my short tenure is 99% about one club.
———-

Coming as it does after RTC, where the tone on the threads was often very harsh, it is unavoidable that the focus of TSFM will remain on Ibrox until justice is seen to be done.

If you see comments too gleeful, I suggest you highlight them in a blockquote like this:

and ask how the poster would feel if it was his or her club in the same situation

I’ve yet to see a road map suggested on here as to a way forward from yourself or any other TRFC fan. It’s as though restoration and a new start is just supposed to happen, preferably via a sugar daddy fairy with a magic wand. What about some constructive dialogue rather than sulking about how mean we all are?

Here’a question: Almost every club in Scotland lives within its means, why does one club have to be the exception?

PS @Prohibby
Very naughty of me, but I had a wee titter at your phrase ‘and camp followers’. A bit ‘Round the Horne’ anno 1967 😆

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on12:10 pm - Sep 6, 2014


WRT the “unbudgeted liability” mentioned in court I firstly wondered if it might be the ST cash pool that had been prematurely drained and now constituted a liability.

I then started thinking that it could be further share options that had come to light a la Stockbridge but the subject previously merited statements to AIM and we have not seen any further regulatory notice on this. Finding more of the same after what seemed a catagorical assurance that there were none would probably blow the enterprise sky high. (7 July 2014 : “…there are now no outstanding share options or convertible shares held within the Group. “)

Might it actually just be Ahmad’s payment/ring-fencing – maybe but that doesn’t seem to fit the situation we read about.

Rightly or wrongly I have the perception that this has come upon them both unexpectedly and recently. There is no obvious mention of anything like this in the documents relating to the share issue. Maybe I am reading too much into what little we know. It does however seem to be of some importance (and scale?) as it was raised in court and merited discussion. This is not McCoist’s outstanding Greggs bill substantial though that will undoubtedly be.

Whilst the ST situation may well be the answer, especially as they still seem to have some cash in the bank, could it possibly have anything to do with RR?

Have they very recently managed to use any of the frozen cash they noted was at the same time in their bank account but beyond their reach, this being accessed by some Wonga-style loan agreement with Ashley? Could the apparent takeover of RR by Ashley have triggered some onerous obligation(s) on RIFC?

Immediate repayment of any such loan? Have they had to pay off long serving staff, undertake a complete redecoration or make a major stock purchase? I still don’t understand some of the wording used to describe the sale of merchandise at cost plus 10% and how that applies in the course of their business.

In summary does Ashley now have them by the short and curlies?

What a pity there is no Rangers Press Office aye ready to answer these kind of questions.

Scottish Football thus needs a strong Neil Patey to put all our minds at ease.

View Comment

Avatar

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on12:18 pm - Sep 6, 2014


Resin_lab_dog says:
September 6, 2014 at 1:42 am
————————————————–
Early next week I will have a piece up on the political blog “Slugger O Toole” about my recent trip to Scotland trailing the Yes Scotland campaign-feel free to comment there and I will respond.

I realise that in covering the Ibrox omnishables I have shone a light on the failings of my trade in Scotland.
However, there are great journalists working in politics and current affairs.
It is the Sports Desks that failed to step up when a huge story was gifted to them IMO.

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on12:35 pm - Sep 6, 2014


easyJambo says:
September 6, 2014 at 10:48 am

“Here is a December 2013 notification of a further 2M shares managed by Beaufort which formed part of the Sandy Easdale proxies.”
———————–
The reason the blog is Rangers obsessed to me is that it provides endless possibilities for engagement. I’m sure other clubs have murky back offices that could be explored but none so far has had its doors so dramatically flung open to invite the full glare of public spectacle.

The Laxey Beaufort merry-go-round is fascinating to one not familiar with stock market innuendos. Laxey make significant share acquisitions when the price is falling sharply in August 2013. The share price then picks up markedly but is on the slide again a few months later when Laxey take their Beaufort tranche. My naive instinct is that it is part of a share price support scheme.

However Beaufort as well as selling to Laxey, at the same time acquire nearly the same number of shares again (~3M) from unnamed sellers. Then they announce that a further 2M shares of theirs are the Easedale’s for voting purposes.

I came across the following chart which I hope embeds successfully and which is nice to play with. You can check the share price at any point in time. You might have to select ‘3Y’ to see the whole picture.

http://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/r/rangers-international-football-club-ord-1p/share-charts

Laxey buy in at ~£0.42 in August and again at about the same price in November 2013. The resulting slide thereafter surely dents their investment. GG has strongly suggested that there may be a plan to scare away genuine investors so I’m not sure if Beaufort and Laxey have got some sort of pernicious strategy. They might be mopping up shares on the way down.

So Beaufort have got a pile of shares which may or may not include Blue Pitch and Margarita for whom they are nominees (contact details suggest this is all one organisation). The plot thickens to concrete when you interrogate Beaufort and find a certain Hoodless Brennan with a 25% holding.

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/02693942/BEAUFORT-SECURITIES-LIMITED/group-structure#shareholders

I don’t pretend to know what this all means but it has got to be better than Sudoku.

View Comment

Avatar

DenPosted on12:52 pm - Sep 6, 2014


‘Unbudgeted Liability’

Could be anything I suppose. The fact that it was unbudgeted is probably neither here nor there except as a measure of how good their budgeting is and how thorough the 127 day review was.

Liability suggests that it is still to be paid out of the remaining assets.

I don’t believe that this can be the ST money as it would be a liability in the Budget (well any that I have seen) and also it would be in their interests to declare all money and display responsible stewardship.

Also it is probably not a good idea to seriously mislead a judge so openly, and it would be misleading to omit a substantial amount of funds.

I have previously stated that I doubt that there is a formal ring fencing of ST funds and if there were it does not change Rangers ownership of these funds and ability to access them, except o course if they are frozen by the court.

Right now they owe what they have in the bank to two Creditors that we know of, and probably others that we don’t know of, and MrAhmad has frozen £620k. Looks critical.

Oh yes there is maybe an unbudgeted liability as well!

One thing bothers me though, I have no love for Rangers but the thought of Ahmad benefitting disgusts me considering that he was integral to whole Green era with the deception, lies, unethical business practices and worst of all, stirring of hatred that went with it. I hope he never sees a penny of it.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on1:14 pm - Sep 6, 2014


yakutsuki says:
September 6, 2014 at 11:13 am

Scottish Football Monitor needs a strong look at itself. (In my opinion) TD’s don’t bother me.
====================================
Strangely enough I think TSFM often has ‘strong looks’ at itself as does its posters and I most certainly include myself in that.

I actually have to smile when I think of the ‘kicking’ I got on here when I first arrived and set out my stall – by comparism IMO Raphsodyinblue has had a walk in the park.

We are trying to deal with serious issues here which tend to stir strong emotions and tbh anyone who even looks at the TU/TD count or think it actually means anything won’t survive.

I (when time permits)keep an overview on a helluva lot of sites – many on the Darkside – and if TSFM actually does need to have a strong look at itseld then most of the other sites I mention need to call in the sanitation squad pronto.

A lot of people out there would love to see TSFM implode and I don’t think I am being too paranoid in being convinced that from time to time the site is ‘attacked’ or rubbished by ‘new’ posters appearing with dubious but organised and directed agendas.

They never seem to last the course because IMO they fail to create the ire and hatred that their paymasters seek so as to devalue the TSFM contribution to the Scottish Football Governance debate. And that failure is down to the general courtesy displayed by the vast majority of TSFM posters and long may it continue.

I think a toast is in order ladies and gentleman and the odd M’Lud: Confusion to our Enemies ❗

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on1:22 pm - Sep 6, 2014


Den says:
September 6, 2014 at 12:52 pm

The thought of Ahmad benefitting disgusts me considering that he was integral to whole Green era with the deception, lies, unethical business practices and worst of all, stirring of hatred that went with it. I hope he never sees a penny of it.

===============================================
I am totally with you on that one and tbh I don’t think he’s got a hope in hell of winning his case at the full hearing.

However I can see a scenario if Rangers go into admin/liquidation and he still has the money ring-fenced with his case still to be heard that the administrator/liquidator might well want to cut a deal to release a percentage of the ring-fenced money for Ahmad to drop the court case.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on1:27 pm - Sep 6, 2014


Cygnus X-1
(rhapsodyinblue)

The solution of ripping up and start again is one suggested here by myself and others in the early days of this blog.

Hampden was suggested as the venue but was ruled out by Commonwealth Games and whilst at a higher level than in your scenario I think such a venture would attract 10 to 15k supporters at least, but the key factor would be the imposition of a verifiable policed financial control system to ensure New Rangers worked within a sustainable wage to income ratio. That would be fair play and so would help make integrity paramount. That also requires a new approach to governance and policing of it from the SFA.

Ibrox is an albatross/mill stone around Rangers supporters’ necks and should be jettisoned.

So much for the logistics but in 12 step language you cannot move on to a new life unless you have made an honest inventory of your past and made reparation where possible.

This is a painful but necessary process for your friends around the table. I bet that individually if they had the truth as others saw it and accepted the validity of our feelings of being wronged by deceitful practice that is provable, they would be ready to recognise the reason for your/our resentment AND because they had personal knowledge of you, apologies and try and make reparation.

So why can Rangers as an organisation of fans not do so?

There are two barriers:

Recognition of the truth

Recognition that individuals of other clubs who are the source of the truth consist of more friends than enemies that want what they want – an honest game honestly governed and are NOT their enemies. In short not dismissing the message for dislike of the messenger.

Something that might help overcome these barriers ( and this is for rhapsodyinblue) is to enter the pain of the truth for the reasons given in this article from three years ago about truth and reconciliation.

http://celticunderground.net/nothing-to-see-here-timmy-move-on/

It is the way forward because there has been wrong done and in terms of the gloating it has not been all by the one side and so it’s mutual forgiveness that is required, but an absolute requirement for forgiveness is recognition of wrong and until such time as that honest inventory takes place and reparation is made the denial of truth makes forgiveness and reconciliation impossible because without that self examination step and what flows from it what is to stop it all happening again and the gloating to continue?

View Comment

Avatar

davythelotionPosted on1:31 pm - Sep 6, 2014


ecobhoy says:
September 6, 2014 at 1:22 pm
&&&&&&&
Imran is no different from any of the other beneficiaries of the last twenty years. They all made sure that their own contracts were watertight. Unlike the onerous sort that were agreed for short term gain and long term pain.

Like Ally & Chuckles,Imran believes he has a contract which is enforceable, unlike Ally he appears to have read his.

View Comment

Giovanni

GiovanniPosted on1:39 pm - Sep 6, 2014


I too would like to see Imran Ahmad lose his case and incur all the costs. However I look forward to the hearing as it may the the only chance we’ll ever get to see Charles Green being questioned by lawyers. I only wish that some of the more erudite contributors to the site were allowed to frame some of the questions.

Will an independent Scotland have extradition rights with Normandy?

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on1:49 pm - Sep 6, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
September 6, 2014 at 12:18 pm
Resin_lab_dog says:
September 6, 2014 at 1:42 am
————————————————–
It is the Sports Desks that failed to step up when a huge story was gifted to them IMO.
=============================
I don’t think the vast majority of sports journos had the wherewithall to deal with the story.

And that’s why IMO their management ‘gifted’ the story to them. Basically the move was designed to protect the continuation of Rangers and circulation.

The story was IMO the biggest and most important business story to hit Scotland since the Darien Misadventure. If investigative, political and business journos had been involved from Day 1 it would have been much harder if not impossible to hide the brutal and dangerous (for some) facts emerging especially wrt the corruption destroying Scottish Football.

Instead it was all parcelled-up with the succulent lamb and fed-to the sports journos safe in the knowledge that they were never going to bite the PR hand that fed them.

The whole clique of Scottish Newspaper Editors should hang its collective head in shame over the whole affair for the craven and cowardly press leadership they have displayed.

We still have some skilled and brave journalists who would have dug to get at the truth and exposed the lies and corruption that seems to have reached into every area of the Scottish Establishment.

But they were never allowed off the leash and the task was handed to a bunch of comedians capable only of generating laughs and guffaws at their sycophantic rubbish and buggins-turn press awards.

Still Phil – it’s an ill wind . . . 😆 😎 😆

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on1:57 pm - Sep 6, 2014


Re The staff redundancies that where paid in installments,does anyone know what part in the running of the clumpany their jobs where,and what effect this has had on the day to day operation of same clumpany

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on2:03 pm - Sep 6, 2014


Beatipacificscotia says

September 5 2014 @ 8.02 pm

TRFC play Inverness CT, currently the Premier League leaders, on 16th of September and tickets are now being made available beatipacicscotia`s post highlights the details regarding prices and payments etc, as published by the club.

What interested me was the added notice that, the Club deck, the Copland rear and the Broomloan rear would remain closed for operational reasons.

As far as I can recall, away fans are generally housed in the corner between the Broomloan and Sandy Jardine stands, so I cannot see that these closures are as a result of the police directive a few weeks ago.

Are major repairs being carried out, or is there some other reason. The notice regarding the game with Hibs on 29 Sept does not refer to any closures.

These are sizeable areas of the ground, and I would have imagined the club would strive to have all seats filled.

If repairs are the reason, I cannot see the cost being described as a “liability” but the work could be expensive.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on2:09 pm - Sep 6, 2014


davythelotion says:
September 6, 2014 at 1:31 pm
ecobhoy says:
September 6, 2014 at 1:22 pm

Imran is no different from any of the other beneficiaries of the last twenty years. They all made sure that their own contracts were watertight. Unlike the onerous sort that were agreed for short term gain and long term pain.

Like Ally & [..],Imran believes he has a contract which is enforceable, unlike Ally he appears to have read his.
==========================================
I think you have to look back at the history of what actually happened to understand why Imran is where he is.

Green departed very suddenly in April 2013 as did his pal Imran who was on £300k a year as TRFCL commercial director. His hasty departure followed his internet outing for allegedly leaking confidential information on a fans’ forum, and criticising Ally McCoist and Walter Smith under an online psuedonym.

I assume it was a black bin bag job and I don’t know what pay-off in lieu of notice, if any, he received. But he obviously didn’t get a bonus and such was the speed with which the departures took place I’ve never been clear that any formal bonus contract existed but I tend to think it didn’t.

That quite simply is the difference between him and McCoist who has a legally enforceable contract. Imran, in contrast, appears to have a hand-written scrawl from Green.

I therefore don’t understand how anyone can think that Imran’s contract is watertight. He seems to have been the only spiv so far who has lost out and I don’t think that he will ever win his case if it ever gets to court.

I even doubt, that if Rangers survived until the court case and decided to defend it, that Imran would carry on because of the costs that would be involved. He thinks this is the best time to do a deal and get his money. Whether that also suits an insolvency or any other agenda I just don’t know.

View Comment

Avatar

Paulmac2Posted on2:25 pm - Sep 6, 2014


oddjob says:
September 6, 2014 at 2:03 pm
………………..

The Police directive could be associated with Police costs…if the Police are owed money and the club are behind in payments and cannot guarantee full ongoing payment then it makes sense for Police Scotland to reduce their exposure to non payment by reducing their numbers…which would obviously mean closure of parts of the ground based on Police numbers they are willing to commit until payments are up to date.

Yesterdays court decision would simply reinforce that approach…

Just my opinion…but would not surprise me if that were the case.

View Comment

Avatar

Paulmac2Posted on2:28 pm - Sep 6, 2014


oddjob says:
September 6, 2014 at 2:03 pm
…………..

The fact there is no closures indicated for the Hibs game could be that they expect payments to be brought up to date…or there is an agreed time scale for payments to be made that is within the date of this game…just need to wait and see.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on2:43 pm - Sep 6, 2014


Auldheid says:
September 6, 2014 at 1:27 pm
=================================

I am at one with the sentiments you express but a major roadblock IMO is that we aren’t talking about an individual here or even a small grouping with a clear and common purpose.

We are dealing with a fairly large body of people with very diverse views and aims and I don’t even think it can be taken as ‘a given’ that football is the uniting common denominator.

There is also an added complication that the composition and therefore mores of the group will have a tendency to remain in a state of flux and – possibly more negatively – that different sub-groups will never effectively coalesce into creating that vital common goal.

I think the only possible solution is that a clear path and goal must be mapped-out which takes us to the SFA governance of it.

Until that body is cleansed I can’t see Scottish Football being in a position to offer any real hope to Bears who want to resurrect their club.

A further major problem IMO is we can’t dictate to Bears what they should believe in and therein lies a possibly insoluble problem.

Do we say that you cannot be allowed to ‘move on’ until you shed your history? I think for many that that would be a bridge too far and if Celtic was in Rangers’ shoes then I wouldn’t accept that punishment.

The decision could be ‘legalised’ by reconvening discipinary proceedings and removing some titles. But is that really the basis for rebuilding not only Rangers but Scottish Football.

I have to say that it’s not just Rangers’ fans that have to move on but those of other teams and that’s the hard part because football supporters are hard-wired into ‘victory’ with accepting defeat before a ball is kicked very much an anathema.

I just think it’s too trite to say once the acceptance of former ‘wrongs’ is expressed that as you are now a new club you aren’t entitled to the history of the old club.

In that situation I would be arguing well if it’s a new club why should I accept the guilt of the old and apologise for their wrongdoings.

It obviously becomes a circular argument and I’m not sure how it could be broken to advance the common good of Scottish Football.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on3:06 pm - Sep 6, 2014


Paulmac2 @2.28

Thanks. Could be that, or perhaps TRFC don’t anticipate a huge demand for tickets, and are cutting costs accordingly.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on3:17 pm - Sep 6, 2014


Den says:
September 6, 2014 at 12:52 pm
‘..Oh yes there is maybe an unbudgeted liability as well!’
———-
I might be able to put the reference to ‘unbudgeted liability’ in context ( as far as I could follow).
I summarise from my notes:
When Mr Summers ( quite late in the afternoon) was going through Christine Phillips’ ‘affidavit’, a point was reached where Lord Stewart remarked,”.. If the CEO had been able to say that his ( strategic business]plan) INCLUDED [provision for]the £600 000, it would have been helpful’.

Mr Summers replied ” I will take instructions on the point”
He then carried on going through the Phillips affidavit, with several quite sharp questions from the Judge.
At the end of the discussion on the contents ofthat affidavit,
the Judge asked: ” Are you saying that a successful rights issue is crucial to the applicant? We could grant warrant, and leave it to see how the share issue goes, and the Company can back then?”
To which Mr Summers replied “, No, my lord, the right course, with respect,is to refuse the warrant”
The judge then made it clear that he could make himself available on Tuesday if Counsel chose to take time to consider.
Immediately after this, it was Mr McBrearty’s turn to speak.
[ I go immediately to the point relevant to this post]
McB: My learned friend agree on that it is necessary to look at facts. Mr Wallace’s affidavitis all ” I believe”, “it is likely that” and othe such expressions of OPINION, and hope. What are they telling the Court? Only beliefs which cannot cut against the FACT that the material [evidence] satisfies the tests [ in the legislation]
Judge: is there anything new to you, anything unanticipated, in the affidavit?
McB; Not really, my Lord. .. Even if the share offer is successful, further borrowing will be required, and Mr Wallace is unable to say what form that funding will take…. Mr Wallace cannot hide behind AIM restrictions on revealing market-related information: the company could make an announcement to the Stock Exchange if they had anything concrete to announce. But all Mr Wallace is saying is that he is only ‘negotiating’, and he has nothing to say to your Lordship.’
A little later on, Mr McB referred to previous affidavits in February and May in which phrases such as ” unbudgeted liability”, “non-budgeted”, and “irregular liability”, and Mr Wallace’s ” a liability not within budget”. NO provision was made [for the possibility Ahmad being successful in his claim].
…….
Judge: How much faith should be put in Wallace’s view that there are people willing to come forward?
McB: None. There may be a committed fan base, it may be a big club, there may be loyal fans, but the Court cannot…
Judge: It mat expect to get into the premiership . [Said with what I interpreted as a wry smile]
McB: We don’t know. But it has certainly continued to act as a top-flight club, but with significant operating losses.
Judge: What weight should I give to this ? [ the affidavit]
McB: None at all, on Wallace’s speculative belief that a saviour will step in..Warrant should be granted now, rather than wait on the outcome of the share offer
Judge: Do you accept that granting warrant would prjudice the share offer?
McB: Perhaps it would.
Judge: How would NOT granting warrant prejudice your client?
McB: My Lord, even if the share offer were successful, the company might not last the 60 days .
Judge: Is there cash in the bank?
McB: There may be other debts?
Judge: is any further discussion between the parties likely?

Judge: Mr Summers needs to seek instruction on the ‘budgeted liability” question, so we are looking at an adjournment.
Mr McB: well, it’s in your Lordship’s hands of course, but I doubt if Mr Wallace would be able to offer [ any clarity.?]
Judge: Mr Summers, do you want to chase it up?
Mr S: It would be helpful.
[Here he consulted his agents, sitting behind, and a short adjournment was requested and granted at 4.40 pm.
At 5.07 pm, Court reconvened and Mr Summers reported that he had managed to track down Mr Nash, finance director, and had been given the following:” Provision is being made , amount not certain, in the accounts being prepared for release next month.If a question may arise as to practical funds, £1,2 million is currently held in the bank.”

I don’t know if that is helpful, other than seeming to make clear that RIFC simply did not ‘budget’ for the possibility that Imran might win his case when it is heard in January/February, presumably because they think he has no case.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on3:40 pm - Sep 6, 2014


I should have looked at the offishal Rangers Statement a bit more closely.

THE Company confirms that the Court of Session in Edinburgh has granted a request by Mr Ahmad for an order allowing him to arrest £620,000 in a Rangers bank account or the accounts of others who may be due to pay sums to Rangers.

So even if there’s no money in a Rangers Bank – is that TRFCL/RIFC/Club – they can it take out of the bank account of anyone else due to pay money to Rangers.

Means Imran could lift £620,000 right out of the proceeds of the share offer before it even touches Rangers’ Bank Account.

So £1 million to Letham + interest/charges, £620,000 to Imran, say £200,000 for share offer exes. Hardly enough left for a good night out 😆

View Comment

Comments are closed.