“Anyone read Michael Grant’s article in The Times? Only saw a pull-quote but the headline is about not everyone cheering for Celtic to European success since the financial windfall will put them too far ahead of the other clubs. It’s that old UEFA distribution thingy. Auldheid had a sensible alternative a while back.”
Thanks Danish Pastry for giving Big Pink the opportunity to nudge me (over a coffee I paid for – so how’s that for redistribution of income? 🙂 ) to blog again on the issue of redistribution of UEFA money whilst he was advocating gate sharing as an alternative.
I recall the redistribution debate being discussed on the first TSFM podcast Episode 1-01 of 9th Feb 2014 which can be found here:
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/scottish-football-monitor/id817766886?mt=2
Listening to it again (I used “View in I Tunes”) I heard many of the recent comments on the previous blog being made in that podcast at or around:
9.58: The interdependent nature of the business of football. Why it is different from normal business.
10.50: Celtic/Rangers leaving the Scottish League making it immediately more competitive.
11.30: Clubs as a community resource (like museums or libraries not run for profit, providing a community service and staying solvent).
12.48: People have to let go of the notions that they have held about the nature of football and recognise it is a totally interdependent business.
13.55: Changing the Champions League format to European and Regional Leagues and raising the standard of all, not dropping standards of one to bring about competiveness.
25.50: A rethink at the top level with NEW thinking about redistribution of income using Champions League money.
27.50: The human dilemma.
So rather than repeat what was said originally and very well developed in the comments on the Michael Grant article on the previous blog, I thought I would look at what I think is the greatest barrier to change which was the last item above – the human dilemma. *
Modern football reminds me of a description of a scene from hell where a visitor looks into one room and sees an emaciated group around a table on which is set a large pot full of stew. They cannot eat because their arms have been set straight at the elbow and elongated so that they cannot get a spoon in their mouths. It is a miserable place. Then the visitor goes upstairs and enters a similar room with occupants similarly handicapped, but where everyone is well fed and contented. “How can this be?” he asks his guide. “Well downstairs all their energies are spent in the nigh impossible task of feeding their insatiable hunger, whilst up here they simply feed each other.”
The analogy is bent a little but not broken in the sense that there are fat and emaciated folk in the football version of the lower room but it is not a healthy place as the fat can themselves become emaciated over time (see Liverpool and even Man Utd) but, generally speaking, self-interest or rather what is perceived as self-interest, holds sway.
Human nature that causes the human dilemma is well reflected in normal business where dog eats dog, then eats the food of the dog it ate if it comes out top dog. Football however cannot exist on a dog eat dog basis because it is interdependent as a business. Dog eating dog is bad for business because over a period of time even the top dog will die of starvation.
Now without abusing the dog metaphor any further and risk attracting dog’s abuse, why is it that something which should be as self-evident as looking after each other is good for business, be such a hard sell?
I said in the podcast around 12.48 that folk need to let go of the notions they have clung on to about football, but why is that so difficult?
Perhaps the resistance to that change can be found, at least in the case of Celtic, who at present are asked in the current debate to make a sacrifice for others, either in the form of gate sharing or giving up some Champion Leagues winnings (if/when they qualify) can be found in the genesis of the club and the memory of that genesis passed from generation to generation.
Everyone knows that the original purpose that Brother Walfrid had for Celtic was to feed the poor in the East End of Glasgow and many of that poor had come from Ireland to be strangers in a strange land.
As a Calton man born in the Gallowgate, as was my grandfather (my dad was found under a cabbage in Well St) I’ve never really identified much with the Irish context of Celtic’s history, although I do recognise its importance to many supporters with Irish family ties, but that dimension adds a further layer to the human dilemma.
Think of it, you form a football club to raise money to feed yourself because you live in an environment where welcome mats are in short supply. That money raised is YOUR money. Your life depends on it as does your family’s as well as your close neighbour (usually in the same close). How prepared are you to share what income you have had to raise yourself with others who you believe have been less than charitable towards you?
Add that folk memory to the human selfish trait of wanting what you spend on football spent on meeting your own desire, which is to make you happy watching an entertaining and successful team on the park and you get an idea of where the resistance to a more equitable sharing comes from and how deep it goes.
I use Celtic here because they are my club and part of my life experience and I have no idea if other clubs experience that added layer of resistance to sharing, if indeed they are in position to share. But if we are ever to be able to introduce gate sharing or what I see as the easier alternative of redistribution of UEFA geld because in not coming direct from supporters pockets it has less of the Celtic folk memory layer to overcome, then those who will be asked to make a sacrifice have to be given the confidence that the aim is not to impoverish them (and the Celtic community memory of poverty and fighting it is as strong today in the form of The Celtic Foundation, The Kano Foundation and the numerous charity events organised by supporters and prominent blogs) but to enrich their neighbours, but doing so in such a way that they enrich themselves. That is the challenge.
In the upper room in the earlier hellish description, the occupiers present the ultimate example of charity in that in feeding each other they feed themselves.
- PS the podcast covers other issues that some 18 months later might still be of interest.
“Cost to the business is a good and verifiable basis for valuation on the balance sheet.” spot on Den
alzipratu says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 2:55 pm
” Must be having a h-ellis-h time, eh?”
——————————
There was a gentleman named Chris Akers who cropped up at one point in various contributions.
Sitcom,
I have a vague recollection that it was a comment from Sandy Jardine?
Smugas says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 12:26 pm
“…if the liquidation asset sale is unwound returning the assets to BDO presumably to resell, would the Withey insurance payout remain?”
——————————
By Withey insurance payout I presume you are referring to the successful claim made against Collyer Bristow by BDO. Withey was working with Collyer Bristow at the crucial time.
I’m not sure the sale can be unwound though it isn’t impossible. More likely damages would be paid to those that suffered a consequential loss by those who gained.
The Collyer Bristow payment, as reminded to me recently, was damages obtained by BDO for the loss to RFC(IL) of the opportunity to accept a bid from Paul Murray. BDO’s original claim was for £50M but they settled for £24M. The pay-out was predicated on the use of circa £3.5M Collyer Bristow money to imdemnify the asset sale during Green’s negotiations.
So you might have a point but that would be a tortuous legal route. Surely there must be some cut off point of degrees of separation whereby previous decisions remain undisturbed. It would create endless work for lawyers otherwise.
Castofthousands says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 3:29 pm
Back in the day there were quite a few jokes about the Big Hoose turning into a Bleak House, with a Jarndyce v Jarndyce case paying for the faculty of Advocates works outings for the next century or so
Good news for the Jambos
Heart of MidlothianVerified account
@JamTarts
Following a hearing at Hampden this afternoon, Paterson’s red card has been rescinded (reduced to a caution). Free to face ICT next week.
Another chop at the Sevco/SFA Alliance Tree
http://videocelts.com/2015/09/blogs/latest-news/ibrox-court-actions-put-the-sfa-in-the-dock-and-dickson-in-the-spotlight?#cguMmvA6iZg3EbG5.97
Apologies if already posted, this is a letter to all creditors by BDO, dated yesterday-
http://www.bdo.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1354092/RFC-2012-Plc-update-to-creditors-02-09-15.pdf
Apologies in advance for the essay!
Hopefully this isn’t straying too far into topics that can’t be discussed but a thought struck me watching the scenes of the mob facing Charles Green and the subsequent delight being expressed by certain fans of the Ibrox club that the average person probably doesn’t have the first clue what is being investigated and what the possible impact is.
There seems to be a certain view that “Rangers” is somehow the victim in this tale of potential fraud. It is not, it is the subject of the transactions not a party to them. As far as I can see there are several possible impacts on “Rangers” and none of them are good.
Looking at the first transaction.
Whyte buys Murray’s stake in RFC for £1. As part of the deal LBG had their debt repaid. Neither SDM nor LBG were victims, they got their money. Financing for the purchase relied heavily on Ticketus who lost heavily, which has been the subject of separate action and judgement against Whyte.
The company acquired was a loss making business that was heavily indebted and had significant contingent liabilities. It went into administration and then liquidation because its business model was flawed and heavily reliant on Champions League revenue, arguably its goose was already cooked before Whyte took over.
So what if this transaction is found to be fraudulent and charges laid? The original club itself is in liquidation and that’s not going to change. The club was the subject of the transaction not a party to it, the club itself was in no way defrauded. In fact, it’s hard to see how anyone other than Ticketus have any claim to having been defrauded. Any action relating to anything occurring during the operation of the company doesn’t benefit the current club either, it would only benefit the creditors of the liquidated club.
On to the second transaction.
Sevco Scotland buys the assets of RFC from the administrators for the sum of £5.5m. On these pages we’ve discussed two underlying problems issues with this:
1. The announced deal was with Sevco 5088 Ltd yet the actual deal was done with Sevco Scotland Ltd
2. The purchase price seems low in light of the assets acquired.
Regardless of anything else, Sevco Scotland is now the Club calling itself Rangers and playing Championship football as Rangers, what would the impact be on them? The dispute over 5088 v Scotland seems to be an ownership thing between Green and Whyte and whilst this could be messy I’m not convinced that this has as significant ramifications for the Club.
However, notwithstanding that any legal action and ownership dispute in relation to the assets of Rangers makes it all but impossible for RIFC/TRFC to raise money, without further funding then an insolvency event must beckon within months.
On top of that the second issue is the potentially more damaging one though as RIFC/TRFC are the beneficiaries of the lowball asset acquisition. If this is found to be the case then the creditors of RFC (IL) are the victims, possibly in the realms of a few tens of millions and that will surely be the end of the current iteration of Rangers who cannot conceivably compensate RFC (IL) for the market value of those assets. The assets would presumably have to be sold again to compensate RFC (IL)’s creditors.
There are obviously other legal implications in this that I prefer not to explore (the public offering for example) but it is hard not to see this chain of events being a death that it would be hard to recover from.
alzipratu says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 2:55 pm
============================
alzipratu, always good to see you posting. Corsica may well have been right about the concert party (with or without King) but King did make noises in May 2012 about trying to limit the damage done by Whyte, which I guess would have been the basis of his Fit and Proper discussion with the SFA. He’s obviously not short of ego and his track record suggests he wouldn’t be averse to underhand dealings to further his own gain. What’s he got to lose now – his (or his kids/someone else’s)share investment of £2.386m? Or did you have something else in mind?
STICKY
Following Ryan’s excellent suggestion, we are proposing to have a get-together in Perth in October.
We have put together a page here
http://wp.me/P6dIXj-Sz
which you can also reach from the menu, FUNDING|SFM Roadhsow
There is a form in there which is only available to signed in members. It will help us make our decision if anyone interested (or perhaps would bring others), if you give us an idea of your thinking asap.
THERE IS NO COMMITMENT AT THIS STAGE!!!
On a more serious point folks, please be careful when remarking on events which are the subject of proceedings. These events now apparently include both Craig Whyte’s purchase of Rangers and Charles Green’s purchase of the liquidated assets. Remember we also have credibility to consider as well as a duty (if we are serious about our own integrity) to avoid prejudging or prejudicing the upcoming proceedings.
This one is for all journos reading.
The Sun has published the charges against one of the Duff and Phelps partners.
Given it was those partners of Duff and Phelps who failed to supply the evidence that Harper MacLeod and SPFL Board have been supplied with by SFM since last Feb, is there not now an urgent need to re-examine the genesis of the LNS Commissioning and so its absurd football findings as suggested in the series of blogs that can be found at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9aVdQMDVJdml2dzg/view?usp=sharing
One of the first things Surveyor’s tend to think when valuing property is what assumptions do I need to use here. This is particularly the case when the subjects are not often bought or sold and where there is a lack of sales information to rely upon. If a large dilapidated football stadium was to be valued the range of sensibly defensible assumptions would be wide. In particular views need to be taken on obsolescence depreciation suitability for use value of the underlying land and more. So a stadium might be bought for one figure and then immediately be revalued to a much different figure because the assumptions used could be very different. That might be a pauchle it might not.
The value of assets to an individual might be much greater than to anyone else. A spiv might be able to generate much more from a business than anyone else but the value derived from that might be much more than the value to anyone else. He would pay a figure more than anyone else but less than the worth to him. To rely on what he paid as a market value is not necessarily accurate particularly when the parties’ underlying assuming differ.
The surveyor’s fig leaf is that valuation is an art rather than a science which is true…
sitcom says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 2:56 pm
I wish I could remember who it was who said ( along the lines of ) that the most animated he had seen CW was whilst he awaited the nod from the Court for his preferred administrator Duff&Phelps to be appointed . Does anyone else recall this point of view and who said it?
————————————————-
Was this not one of the few things that Gordon Smith actually picked up on?
Scottish Football doesn’t need more Sgt Schultz characters like Smith (who really should have scored).
zerotolerance1903 says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 3:58 pm (Edit)
Yup not as RFC as we knew it but who would want that history anyway?
Perhaps this time whatever emerges will have morality not dignity as its beacon.
Big Pink says:
Moderator:
September 3, 2015 at 1:16 am
Just over 20 people indicating a willingness to attend the Pert Monitor…
===============================
BP, it was jimbo yesterday, and now it’s you today: “Pert” ?! 🙄
Is this another Freudian slip, or will attendees have to submit to fat measurements being taken before being allowed access ?
I think we should be told. 😉
[That will be my quality contribution for today, thank you.]
StevieBC says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Big Pink says:
Moderator:
September 3, 2015 at 1:16 am
Just over 20 people indicating a willingness to attend the Pert Monitor…
===============================
BP, it was jimbo yesterday, and now it’s you today: “Pert” ?! 🙄
Is this another Freudian slip, or will attendees have to submit to fat measurements being taken before being allowed access ?
I think we should be told. ?
==================================================
Stevie, I suspect that certain of the adverts may be having an impact upon our dear moderator! 😉
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
bfbpuzzled says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 4:20 pm
Ah, the old worth / value conundrum.
It was explained to me, by a Surveyor, as follows.
Worth is subjective, value is objective.
So a one bedroom flat in Newcastle is worth very little to me as I live in Glasgow, work in Glasgow and have children who go to school in Glasgow. However it’s worth to a single student, attending University in Newcastle would be quite considerable. It is a subjective test.
It’s value on the other hand can be established using various factors. The main one being “what are similar flats, in a similar location, currently selling for”. It is for the most part a measurable and objective test. If you want to buy it that is roughly what you will need to pay.
Moving on to a stadium as you described. It is worth a lot to a football team calling themselves Rangers, playing in the Scottish championship, wearing a blue strip … etc. It is worth very little to me. In fact given it’s state it would almost certainly be a useless liability. I would have to spend money just to make sure it doesn’t fall down.
Bearing in mind any “Value” placed on it in the accounts is almost certainly based on having to rebuild it, as opposed to what one could expect to get when selling it. As I recall that is the method DM Hall (I think) historically used to place a “value” on the stadium.
Sorry to post twice in quick succession.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12532276.Rangers_balance_sheet_boosted_by_hike_in_Ibrox_stadium_value/
“RANGERS FC has beefed up its battered balance sheet by booking a huge (pounds) 39m hike in the value of its property – principally Ibrox stadium – it has emerged. ”
“DM Hall’s Roy Hudghton, who carried out the valuation, stressed: ”An asset valuation based on depreciated replacement cost should not be confused with the price you would get for selling something. A lot of companies have seen their asset values rise over the last few years due to rising estimates of how much it would cost to replace them.”
Homunculus says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 4:46 pm
Moving on to a stadium as you described. It is worth a lot to a football team calling themselves Rangers, playing in the Scottish championship, wearing a blue strip … etc. It is worth very little to me. In fact given it’s state it would almost certainly be a useless liability. I would have to spend money just to make sure it doesn’t fall down.
==========================================================================
It’s value would need to also consider alternative uses for the site not just it’s current use as a football stadium, whether that be in an Highbury style development or knocked down to build a Tesco.
Ibrox, of course, was also not the only real estate asset in the portfolio.
The Perthathon (got to call it something) is now up to about 35 potential attendees, so we have booked the Centenary Suite at MacDiarmid Park. Will wait another few days to gauge the situation with respect to the food and the Glasgow bus.
Remember that it appears Celtic are playing Molde (cue Lieutenant Pigeon) on that night, so if there are any Celtic fans who hate to miss games who want to change their mind about going, please let us know asap.
Looking good though. More later.
Wrll done Celtic, very well done indeed!
http://www.celticfc.net/news/9008
“CELTIC FC Foundation today announced that its share of the proceeds from this weekend’s duo of Jock Stein 30th Anniversary events will be devoted to assisting those people affected by the current refugee crisis.”
Apologies if this has been posted before. I’ve not been able to dip in and out of the blog for a while now.
Some time ago someone mentioned a possible consultation on extensions to the Freedom of Information Scotland Act. By chance I’ve just seen that this has been open since June (!) but closes tomorrow.
I’ve not had time to read the document but I thought I would share in case anyone wishes to suggest that transparency in our ‘national game’ is something that should extend the Act to the SFA.
https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/freedom-of-information/foi-consultation/consult_view
John Clark says:
Member:
September 2, 2015 at 9:44 pm
Allyjambo says:
Member: (1202 comments)
September 2, 2015 at 12:10 pm
.’For once, John, I find I don’t agree with one of your posts ?…..The companies, both TRFC and RIFC, were both legally constituted companies, regardless of how the assets were acquired, ..’
________
Too much agreement would never do, Aj.
Hypothetically, though,if John Clark and Co,a company set up and registered quite properly and legally, were to buy the assets of a liquidated Allyjambo Ltd by illegal means, the assets would not ever belong to John Clark and Co, or to any subsequent owner to whom they were sold ,even if they were sold on several times to different people. Title would, surely, remain with the original owner? and everybody else would, perforce, lose out, as secondary victims of, say, a fraudulent scheme?
I might concede that some legal principle of pragmatism might have to be invoked at some point.
But there are many examples of perfectly ‘legal’ entities ( e.Lord Elgin, the British Museum, City of Glasgow) acquiring the property of others whether knowingly by theft or deceit or innocently enough by purchase from the supposed owners, having to acknowledge that the property they obtained
has to be returned to the legal owners ( Greece,indigenous Australian skulls,the American Indian shawl).
There might be a point in the chain when a decision might have to be made in order to sort out a mess- but that would have to be based on some legal principle, rather than on mere pragmatism ( ‘possession nine-tenths of the law’?)
That is, at some point a Court ( or Parliament) would have to legalise the situation to the detriment of the original owner [ on something of the same basis as compulsory purchase orders can remove your right to your home)
There might very well be such provision which I, as a non-lawyer,know nothing about.
But it’s an interesting question.
____________________________________
John,
I may have mis-understood the thrust of your original post. I took it to mean you reckoned Ashley might have a problem claiming any monies from TRFC at all, not just in relation to the assets he holds security over. I would imagine, regardless of the security position, he could still receive repayment from funds held in the bank (if he gets there in time) as, as far as we know, they are the legitimate income of the company.
If I was in Ashley’s position (yeh, if only), and I wanted the money repaid, I’d be in the process of chasing it now. Any delay must reduce the prospect of ever seeing it again, at least in full, especially if things turn out as bad as many people think it might for TRFC.
Of course, clever though Mike Ashley is, it’s possible the recent events have thrown his plans awry, and he is now having to re-assess his position and come up with a new plan.
With someone like him, this might open up new avenues to be exploited, or simply make him decide to get his money back, or as much as he can, and leave. I’m sure his lawyers are looking into the implications as I type!
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer:
September 3, 2015 at 4:15 pm
‘…Given it was those partners of Duff and Phelps who failed to supply the evidence that Harper MacLeod and SPFL Board have been supplied with by SFM since last Feb…’
_________
Auldheid,I think you’re absolutely right to remind us all -and any journalists who read the SFM- that while, as members of the public, we are naturally very interested in the allegations made against certain people connected with the sale, administration, liquidation of RFC (IL), and the creation of the new Sevco5088/Sevco Scotland/Rangers 2012/TRFC/RIFC , our PRINCIPAL concern is with the destructively cynical disregard of Sporting Integrity shown by our Football Authorities in their failure to deal appropriately with RFC(IL) AND their secret, deceitful readiness to abandon all notion of right governance in their desperation to accommodate a new club,and lend their support to a most monstrous lie and sporting fiction.
They must be brought to account for the sake of Scottish Football Integrity which is a much more important matter than any criminal offences which may or may not have been committed by dastardly little money-grubbers.
Ah, but perhaps not if, in your report, you very carefully (and probably under instruction), answered a question other than the one that was asked.
The spirit of Turnbull Hutton lives as Raith take no crap from the Mighty Glasgow Rangers
http://www.raithrovers.net/21283/compliance-officer-asked-to-investigate-early-return-of-rangers-player-from-international-duty.htm
Sad to see the new football management team, walking in the brogues of the old one
Scottc,
Indeed, I’m sure the question to be answered in the the top notch lawyer’s report was done so most carefully and having done so, I’m also sure that the author thought that was the end of that and considered what to do with his fee finding bonus.
Mind you, he could now rely on the LNS defence of only being able to work with the evidence he’d been given at the time.
Depreciated replacement cost as a Vale starts with The cost of a new stadium suitable for the purpose (which might be smaller than the existing one or indeed larger). depreciated to account for life left compared to the new one less an amount for obolescence -functional economic and physical. That might account for the listed part the fact that the infrastructure is out dateetc To this is added the land value the number and extent of the necessary assumptions makes that value fall into a large range of possible figures.
Indivual worth is as has been said what it is worth to those who use it. a sensible person would look at projections on profits and allocate part of that to the stadium as a quasi rent capitalise that and one has the individual worth to the occupier. The discount rate or capitalisation rate are highly subjective.
The land on which the hypothetical stadium is built might be contaminated or otherwise toxic.
A club which is to use the stadium might attach value to the stadium over and above the capitalised rent but that is purely quixotic one might need to buy history and so on.
In a previous life I was a surveyor and may even have taught valuation for many years…
scapaflow says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 6:22 pm
The spirit of Turnbull Hutton lives as Raith take no crap from the Mighty Glasgow Rangers
http://www.raithrovers.net/21283/compliance-officer-asked-to-investigate-early-return-of-rangers-player-from-international-duty.htm
Sad to see the new football management team, walking in the brogues of the old one
===================================================
Good spot there sf.
On the face of it, to a blind man it looks like a clear breach of rules…but then again we are dealing with the SFA here.
The RR regular first team player Craig Wighton remains with the Scotland squad, whilst the TRFC player is recalled – presumably to play in the TRFC game against RR ?
If the SFA/TRFC had any sense, then the TRFC should simply not appear in the squad, and thus avoid yet another SFA/TRFC shambles, [yes, I know…].
If the player does play, then is TRFC not in breach of UEFA or FIFA rules as well ?
Either way, whoever penned the RR statement has an appealing writing style;
“…We are delighted that Craig is receiving international recognition, and whilst we are without his services for the crucial match with Rangers, our loss is Scotland’s gain…”
A kick to the goolies – delivered with a smile on your face ! Nicely done. 😉
sitcom says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 2:56 pm
redlichtie says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 4:34 pm
———————————————
“Gordon Smith said the only time he saw Craig Whyte really flustered, was when he got wind that HMRC were going to appoint their own Administrators.”
And Like a bat out of hell he was gone when the morning came. 😯
PMGB has blogged that Ashley has sent Lambias to Glasgow. Phil suggests he’s there to be ‘closer to the action’ and that Ashley may be about to call in the loan, with a car park and an empty building still good as security, while a training facility has been discounted as such due to recent events!
Fridays are so often bad news days for struggling businesses…
Thinking about Phil’s blog. With Ashley keen to protect his £5.5m loan, you would imagine King would be similarly disposed at this time of turmoil to be in close proximity to the action, too. Perhaps even there with cheque book in hand in case an emergency loan is required.
One would think that much of yesterday’s euphoria will have died down and more and more bears will begin to realise that it may well be time to worry about the future of their club. No statement from the board. Not even a small puff piece from Level5 yet. Just a few lines to state the club’s position I would have thought appropriate. It may be that it’s difficult to find the right words, though.
scottc says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 6:11 pm
Ah, but perhaps not if, in your report, you very carefully (and probably under instruction), answered a question other than the one that was asked.
——————————————————-
Or if you have already answered “We have a problem Houston.” but no one listened.
Big Pink says:
September 3, 2015 at 4:55 pm
The Perthathon (got to call it something) is now up to about 35 potential attendees, so we have booked the Centenary Suite at MacDiarmid Park. Will wait another few days to gauge the situation with respect to the food and the Glasgow bus.
Remember that it appears Celtic are playing Molde (cue Lieutenant Pigeon) on that night, so if there are any Celtic fans who hate to miss games who want to change their mind about going, please let us know asap.
…………………………………………………………….
Can I make a small quiet plea for those of us who live south of the b****r? An evening meet on a weekday night is, how can I put it, not quite at the top of our agenda.
I hope that you all enjoy the Perthanon, but, in future, please think about those of us who still support real fitba’, but have to put up with M.O.T.D. I would very much like to meet some of our fellow posters (having run across JC in a courtroom in Edinburgh), if only to put them right!
From STV News- http://news.stv.tv/west-central/1328019-crown-asks-for-extension-to-present-case-over-alleged-rangers-fraud/
Back on the old assets trail again; has anyone mentioned the playing staff?
Players walked away yes but others transferred as part of that agreement. Will those transfers still hold if the court case goes badly.
Obviously I know their SFA registration will be unaffected as no one knew it was false at the time of registration (copyright Bryson at the SFA).
Wallace, now there is a fine player who is suddenly worth £3M again. A few of those promising youngsters who TUPE’d over may also be of value!!
Good Evening
In my opinion there will shortly be no “The Rangers Football Club ltd.”
They are the fruit of the poisoned tree.
Anyone who subscribed to the IPO or loaned TRIFC money has lost their money.
These will be outcomes.
The bears were told but did not listen.
Honest decent fans have been taken for mugs and heads should roll at the SFA and SPFL.
What chance a repeat of Liquidation and a restart or have they been punished enough?
woodstein says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 7:52 pm
An Eagle Eyed bampot spotted that Whyte turned up to his court date with a copy of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged.
One of the key themes of this polemical novel is ta ra
property rights!
It seems that the Motherwell Born Billionaire is retaining a sense of humour in the face of life’s trials and tribulations
Can’t help but accord the wee b a bit of respect for that!
Big Pink, I’d like to go but you might like to ask Stuart Cosgrave along. That would be so good. Now I suspect you have ‘fluence so go on try your best. (BTW he has to come free of charge but I promise I will buy him a pint and I also promise I will not roast him all night about Celtic. I will read up on St. Jonsuns)
Aye and that big eejit Tam Cowan too! That would be a lift home for me.
Allyjambo says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 8:12 pm
‘….. Just a few lines to state the club’s position I would have thought appropriate. It may be that it’s difficult to find the right words, though.’
_________
Yes, indeed.
Just how does one formally announce to shareholders and potential investment targets or lenders of millions that the former owner of a football club that no longer exists except in a state of Liquidation, and the founder of a newish club of which one is now chairman ( or interim chairman)and which uses the assets (picked up cheap in the liquidation sale) that used to belong to that former owner, are both facing criminal charges relating to the ugly word ‘fraud’?
Better to say nothing.
And, in fairness, the RIFC board have probably been advised to say nothing, because in a sense, they have a real ‘interest’ in the case in that the outcome could, perhaps, see them out of a job! Anything they said might be interpreted as discussing the rights and wrongs of the charges and allegations.
Which would not at all be seemly and proper, and might get them into trouble with the courts. 🙂
With regard to the title to the potentially disputed assets, the general rule of Scots law, in common with many other legal systems, is that the title of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice ( e.g. of fraud or other invalidity or other impropriety) is generally unimpeachable.
It’s a well known exception to the basic rule “nemo dat quod non habet” (i.e no-one can give good title to that which he does not own).
That leaves the party who was duped out of good title (“the dupee”?) to go after the party who committed the fraud generally by way of action for damages, but that won’t generally affect the good title of the purchaser buying in good faith and for value and without notice of impropriety further down the line.
Of course much will ride on the evidence so far as Sevco’s title to the assets is concerned,and that’s likely to be tortuous given that the lawyer for one of the accused has already referred to over a hundred thousand pages of disclosure from the Crown Office and a case bigger and more complex than Lockerbie.
Hoopy 7 says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 9:05 pm
Good Evening
In my opinion there will shortly be no “The Rangers Football Club ltd.”…
==============================
Well, off the field it continues to be bad news / bad PR swirling around the Ibrox club. And it seems highly unlikely that any new money will be coming RIFC/TRFC’s way…
But I was curious at Phil’s assertion that Mike is ‘confident’ that he can get Edmiston House and Albion Car Park in the absence of his loan repayment.
Edmiston House, IIRC, is falling to bits, and not exactly a prize asset to claim.
The Albion Car Park is ‘potentially’ a decent development site next to the M8 – but again, IIRC, maintaining the car park was a requirement of consent for previous Ibrox planning permission. But if no Ibrox, then the site could be developed ?
Getting confused again: does Ashley do property development on the side [?] and/or are these 2 potential assets useful for his SD empire ?
neepheid says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 8:48 pm
‘…The Crown Office has asked for an extension to the date when an indictment must be served on those charged in connection with the alleged fraudulent purchase of Rangers in 2011.’
_________
Many thanks for posting that link.
The original sale is key, and there may be other persons still to charged.
Or at least, the cast of characters who traipsed across the pages of RTC and SFM might very well be referenced in a clearer context.
John Clark says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 9:22 pm
I would think you are very correct to say they will have been advised to say nothing, but I think it unlikely to be because it might be deemed prejudicial to the case if all they were to say was something along the lines of ‘don’t worry, there’s no problems for the club’. Their advice, on the other hand, might be to say nothing, because there actually is a serious problem for the club (I don’t know if there is), and to say there’s not might lead to problems for the board members, personally, at a later date.
the Don Dionisio says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 9:26 pm
‘…the general rule of Scots law, in common with many other legal systems, is that the title of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice ( e.g. of fraud or other invalidity or other impropriety) is generally unimpeachable..’
_________
I am grateful to you,Don Dionisio,for that piece of info.
the Don Dionisio says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 9:26 pm
With regard to the title to the potentially disputed assets, the general rule of Scots law, in common with many other legal systems, is that the title of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice ( e.g. of fraud or other invalidity or other impropriety) is generally unimpeachable.
It’s a well known exception to the basic rule “nemo dat quod non habet” (i.e no-one can give good title to that which he does not own).
That leaves the party who was duped out of good title (“the dupee”?) to go after the party who committed the fraud generally by way of action for damages, but that won’t generally affect the good title of the purchaser buying in good faith and for value and without notice of impropriety further down the line.
Of course much will ride on the evidence so far as Sevco’s title to the assets is concerned,and that’s likely to be tortuous given that the lawyer for one of the accused has already referred to over a hundred thousand pages of disclosure from the Crown Office and a case bigger and more complex than Lockerbie.
_________________
Would that not only count if TRFC had bought the assets in good faith from the perpetrator of the fraud, or from some other previous innocent buyer? Were the assets not bought by Sevco Scotland from Rangers (In Administration), and remain in their hands under a different name (TRFC Ltd)? Surely if a company, any company, purchases something fraudulently it can’t hold onto it once the fraud has been established, even if it has changed it’s name!
Serious criminal charges have been laid against four men regarding the sale of the shell of Rangers. I have never heard of such events in Scottish football before. I assume under Scots law they are all innocent until proven guilty.The case could take months. How can anyone inject funds into a Rangers when legal action is underway? How can a share issue be even contemplated? How can the company pay back the $8,000,000 outstanding loans? How can a football company lose $11,000,000 in a year? How can they keep paying a gardener 70,000 a month till December? How can a company function with no line of credit at a bank? Will the last funds run out in November or December? So many unanswered questions.
John Clark says @ 9-50pm
no problem, JC, il piacere e tutto mio.
Allyjambo @ 9-55pm.
I agree with you to the extent that the answers to your questions will all turn on the facts and the evidence.
the Don Dionisio says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 9:59 pm
‘… il piacere e tutto mio.’
__________
Spero che non non sia tifoso Siciliano del Juventus- ho ne incontrato non pocchi qualqe anno fa. 😀
AllyjamboAllyjambo says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 9:55 pm
the Don Dionisio says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 9:26 pm
With regard to the title to the potentially disputed assets, the general rule of Scots law, in common with many other legal systems, is that the title of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice ( e.g. of fraud or other invalidity or other impropriety) is generally unimpeachable.
It’s a well known exception to the basic rule “nemo dat quod non habet” (i.e no-one can give good title to that which he does not own).
That leaves the party who was duped out of good title (“the dupee”?) to go after the party who committed the fraud generally by way of action for damages, but that won’t generally affect the good title of the purchaser buying in good faith and for value and without notice of impropriety further down the line.
Of course much will ride on the evidence so far as Sevco’s title to the assets is concerned,and that’s likely to be tortuous given that the lawyer for one of the accused has already referred to over a hundred thousand pages of disclosure from the Crown Office and a case bigger and more complex than Lockerbie.
_________________
Would that not only count if TRFC had bought the assets in good faith from the perpetrator of the fraud, or from some other previous innocent buyer? Were the assets not bought by Sevco Scotland from Rangers (In Administration), and remain in their hands under a different name (TRFC Ltd)? Surely if a company, any company, purchases something fraudulently it can’t hold onto it once the fraud has been established, even if it has changed it’s name!
………………………………….
Is this a ‘Bryson’ type of interpretation opportunity ???
Is that that eggy language you guys learned in the jile ?
the Don Dionisio says:
Don. All well and good . Now, suppose I were to be considering buying a house from Mr Brown. Negotiations proceed, but at the last minute Mr Purple says hey I own that house. Being a prudent chap I go and get an opinion from Sue, Grabbit & Run. They say Purple’s claim represents a very low risk. On that basis I conclude the sale . Some years later as the result of criminal proceedings, it becomes clear that Purple’s title was in fact valid. will that low risk come back to tak a huge bite out of my bum?
Not to wander too far from topic, I hope to attend the Election Court hearing (on Monday in Court One of the Court of Session)of the petition from Orkney and Shetland constituents that Alistair Carmichael, MP for that constituency,that he should step down as MP for whatever it was that he allegedly did.
The proceedings are to be televised live and in full(by STV), making history in Scotland.
Wouldn’t it be absolutely fabulous if , when the time comes, another trial of more basic interest ( if not of the same degree of overall civic importance) to a really big audience were to be televised live!
paddy malarkey says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 11:04 pm
‘Is that that eggy language you guys learned in the jile ?’
________
” ‘You talkin’ ta me?'” 😀 👿
Allyjambo says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 9:55 pm
the Don Dionisio says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 9:26 pm
With regard to the title to the potentially disputed assets, the general rule of Scots law, in common with many other legal systems, is that the title of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice ( e.g. of fraud or other invalidity or other impropriety) is generally unimpeachable.
It’s a well known exception to the basic rule “nemo dat quod non habet” (i.e no-one can give good title to that which he does not own).
That leaves the party who was duped out of good title (“the dupee”?) to go after the party who committed the fraud generally by way of action for damages, but that won’t generally affect the good title of the purchaser buying in good faith and for value and without notice of impropriety further down the line.
Of course much will ride on the evidence so far as Sevco’s title to the assets is concerned,and that’s likely to be tortuous given that the lawyer for one of the accused has already referred to over a hundred thousand pages of disclosure from the Crown Office and a case bigger and more complex than Lockerbie.
_________________
Would that not only count if TRFC had bought the assets in good faith from the perpetrator of the fraud, or from some other previous innocent buyer? Were the assets not bought by Sevco Scotland from Rangers (In Administration), and remain in their hands under a different name (TRFC Ltd)? Surely if a company, any company, purchases something fraudulently it can’t hold onto it once the fraud has been established, even if it has changed it’s name!
==========================================================================
Isn’t that exactly the point?
If the purchase of RFC assets by Sevco Scotland is found to be fraudulent, Sevco is both the current owner of those assets and the vehicle through which the fraud occurred. As the acquiring company it is party to transaction, Charles Green wasn’t a separate party in this, he was acting as an officer of the Club.
Working on the basis of “you can’t give what you don’t own” (nemo dat quod non habet in Latin terms), if the purchase by Mr Whyte was fraudulent, rendering all other transactions irrelevant as they were built on a foundation of fraud, what odds Sir David Murray eventually holding the reigns to a club cleansed of the tax bills he landed it with? Wouldn’t that work out nicely for him…
I have to say
For me, this week started with a renewed interest in the ongoing saga with collars being felt and probably more to come
However
These events quickly dissolved in the unfolding tragedy of genuine refugees pleading for help.Troubled people who would not be out of place at any football ground in Scotland
If only the SFA had quietly canvassed clubs and then offered some practical support to these desperate people
If a big club like Bayern Munich can make a gesture of help surely our little league of little clubs can do something as well ?
All it takes is the will to do whats right for a change
RyanGosling says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 11:36 pm
Working on the basis of “you can’t give what you don’t own” (nemo dat quod non habet in Latin terms), if the purchase by Mr Whyte was fraudulent, rendering all other transactions irrelevant as they were built on a foundation of fraud, what odds Sir David Murray eventually holding the reigns to a club cleansed of the tax bills he landed it with? Wouldn’t that work out nicely for him…
========================================================================
I would guess zero chance of this outcome.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/03/sports-direct-shareholder-group-issues-red-alert-warning-bonuses
Just when MA might have wanted to keep his head below the governance parapet …
Sarf o the border meet?
For us non Perth attendee’s.
Any proposals?
I ken Essex won’t venture south of the Thames, so any suggestions?
RyanGosling says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 11:36 pm
‘.. what odds Sir David Murray eventually holding the reigns to a club cleansed of the tax bills he landed it with? Wouldn’t that work out nicely for him..’
________
Oh! RyanGosling! Go and wash your mouth out with soap! 🙂
There was, though, a long, long time ago, a reflection on the blog ( possibly in RTC days) on how it might have happened that a Lanarkshire small-time wide-boy was able suddenly to pop up and dupe,business-wise, a knighted pillar of the Scottish business establishment whose business acumen had made him a very, very rich man.
There was further ( no doubt totally unfounded and scurrilous) speculation about that very rich man’s possible connection with -what are they called? venture-don’t-pay-tax- entrepreneurial enterprises.Such as companies offering ticketing service facilities.
There was even at least one ,clearly deranged, poster who quietly muttered that there was a mastermind behind the Lanarkshire wide-boy, who, possibly aided by a pornographer turned lawyer ( or lawyer turned pornographer)had worked out a way to get shot of significant debt, using the wide-boy asset- stripper,but keeping his own mitts on the levers of control-some of which had perhaps assured him that liquidation was no barrier to entry into the top league, and so on …….and on.
Endless speculation.
But you could be on a winner.
ianagain,
London central venue for those who won’t make the Perth Symposium ?
Carlyle. Would it not be easier to come to Perth? ?
Although let us know where and when you get together. Wouldn’t miss that one.
redlichtie says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 4:34 pm
sitcom says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 2:56 pm
I wish I could remember who it was who said ( along the lines of ) that the most animated he had seen CW was whilst he awaited the nod from the Court for his preferred administrator Duff&Phelps to be appointed . Does anyone else recall this point of view and who said it?
————————————————-
Was this not one of the few things that Gordon Smith actually picked up on?
Scottish Football doesn’t need more Sgt Schultz characters like Smith (who really should have scored).
________________________
Something that I’ve pondered on recently, how would things have panned out had HMRC tried harder and had their own administrators appointed? This whole story would have gone very differently.
Carlyle says:
Member:
September 4, 2015 at 12:24 am
‘…. Perth Symposium ‘
________
I like it!
That’s got dignity! I shall wear my brogues to Perth.
And, sudden flash of brilliance, as I look forward to our Skype tomorrow night with the grandweans in Oz, if you have your ‘symposium’ on the same evening and at the same time as we are having ours , a wee Skype hookup should be possible these days.
Or is the technology not so great as dinosaurs such as I believe it is meant to be? 🙂
scullerypress says:
Member:
September 4, 2015 at 1:03 am
‘..Something that I’ve pondered on recently, how would things have panned out had HMRC tried harder and had their own administrators appointed? This whole story would have gone very differently.’
_______
HMRC have no doubt some experience of administrator/owner scams.
I would imagine, speaking as an ex-civil servant, that the general run of asset-strippers are well enough known at any given time. As will be the general run of those persons who are qualified to act as Administrators of failing companies.
And, of course, the possibility of collusion between a company and the Administrators it chooses to nominate is ever present.
In brief, it is possible that HMRC may give people whom they think they have reason to suspect,enough rope to hang themselves.
The fact that in a particular case HMRC decide not to insist on appointing the Administrator might conceivably be part of paying out the rope.
Will we ever know?
It is hard to keep up at moment.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/firm-linked-former-rangers-owner-6378388
John Clark says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 11:24 pm
paddy malarkey says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 11:04 pm
‘Is that that eggy language you guys learned in the jile ?’
________
” ‘You talkin’ ta me?’” ? ?
Naw, chewin’ a brick . Square go ? Don’t come empty handed . x
Before I forget, paddy malarkey and everybody else, Don Dionisio said ‘the pleasure is all mine’.
To which I replied ‘I hope you’re not a Sicilian fan of Juventus. I met not a few of those some years ago.’
This was a reference to my ( ignorance- based) surprise that football fans in Sicily, sitting in the bar beside me and my son, were fans of Juventus.
I so far forgot myself as to ask them, in effect, how the f… they supported a team based a thousand miles away, and were they not, in any case, Sicilians rather than Italians?
Happily, they put their ‘stiletti’ away 🙂 , and explained patiently that stacks of Sicilians had had to go to northern Italy, and Turin in particular, to find work.And a whole generation or two had just become Torinesi as far as football was concerned.
And I ,diplomatically, held as I was in a metaphorical armlock by my son,said not a word about supporting your local teams!
See, you just have to be ready for anything!
John Clark says:
Member:
September 4, 2015 at 2:12 am
You’re a good and graceful man and I appreciate having you as company. Fill your hand, you son of a bitch .
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12487633.html
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04870518/CASTLE-ENERGY-GROUP-LTD/directors-secretaries#people-summary
RyanGosling says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 11:36 pm
Working on the basis of “you can’t give what you don’t own” (nemo dat quod non habet in Latin terms), if the purchase by Mr Whyte was fraudulent, rendering all other transactions irrelevant as they were built on a foundation of fraud, what odds Sir David Murray eventually holding the reigns to a club cleansed of the tax bills he landed it with? Wouldn’t that work out nicely for him…
___________________________
It would certainly fall in line with the way things seem to have worked out for him with all his other disasters – they ended up as disasters for others, while he came out with a nice little bundle!
On the other hand, I doubt he was the victim of any fraudulent deal as I’m sure the £1 coin he got from Whyte was not counterfeit 😆
There was something I was going to write on that transaction, but I think it best, under the circumstances, not to 😯
RayCharlez says:
Member:
September 4, 2015 at 1:41 am
It is hard to keep up at moment.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/firm-linked-former-rangers-owner-6378388
__________________________
Good to know that the DR is catching up with yesterday’s news! Finger on the pulse…of SFM (and elsewhere) 🙄