“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.
Interestingly, King appears to have registered his claim to be a creditor on the basis that he was ‘duped’ by David Murray (one of a long line of ‘dupees’).
King’s claim is based on a legal case he is threatening to bring to court about his investment. I don’t understand why that gives him any kind of claim to be a creditor other than turning up at BDO’s door and saying, “Haw youse! I am a creditor”
On that basis, if we are correct in our assessment that the old club was ‘at it’ in terms of player registration and tax evasion, why, I mean WHY has no other Scottish club (several of which lost varying sums of prize cash and access to European TV money) not turned up and said the very same?
If dishonesty gave Old Rangers access to European competition, (and Auldheid has demonstrated that it is very likely they did), surely Celtic, Motherwell, Aberdeen Hearts and anyone else who lost money and opportunity should be registering a claim against the assets of Old Rangers. I can only see two reasons why they haven’t.
1. We have been totally wrong with respect to how we think Rangers conducted business from the nineties to the naughties.
2. Rangers is only the tip of a very corrupt and self-enriching iceberg belonging to The Blazers – which for obvious reasons, The Blazers want swept under Daphne Broon’s rug.
If we apply Sherlock Holmes’s deduction theory to this, and we rule out the impossible, then however improbable, number 2 above gets my vote.
There are quite a few £3 notes in circulation in Scottish football. Not all of them live in a cupboard at Ibrox or Hampden.
easyJambo says:
Maybe you can explain to me, why is King a creditor of the old club.
=======================
I was hoping that someone would explain it to me first.
———————–when that one comes out,that will be a keeper also.
Dk lodged a 20 million claim against RFC,it was based on the “deliberate non-disclosure by Sir David Murray of transactions that he had committed to on behalf of the club that were both risky and to the sole advantage of the Murray Group.”
The claim has not yet been ratified by the BDO and may well be contested.
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (386 comments)
August 29, 2015 at 6:44 pm
2. Rangers is only the tip of a very corrupt and self-enriching iceberg belonging to The Blazers – which for obvious reasons, The Blazers want swept under Daphne Broon’s rug.
==============================
I’d like to add a third option.
Scottish society is still not in a position where people can freely and openly challenge matters Ibrox without threats / intimidation.
I thought some of you might be interested in a bit of insight into the thoughts of a Rangers “activist” if that’s the correct term. This comes from the sons of struth and specifically from Craig Houston. I think most people will at least know the name. Draw your own conclusions please.
We can ignore the “admin2” nonsense if that’s OK with everyone. If you come out of administration via liquidation then you can’t go into administration again. So even if you take the incorrect view that it’s a new company but not club then that particular myth still doesn’t work. It’s just silly.
=====================================
THE DASTARDLY DEEDS OF ASHLEY.
After yesterday’s Whyte/Duff and Phelps/Green post, which only included info which has been long in the public domain, it became evident that a lot of bears didn’t have a complete grasp of what has went on at Ibrox over the past few years.
I think it’s prudent to summarise other goings on at our club that some may have missed or forgot over the passage of time. The subject of the first of what will become a regular feature is Mr Mike Ashley.
Many question the length of Ashleys dealings with our club and many wrongly believe it to be as an initial investor of the Green regime. His first connection was long before.
We published details months ago regarding a meeting that was planned between Craig Whytes team and Ashley about potential merchandise deals within weeks of Whytes take over. We had sight of an email inviting the Ibrox hierarchy to meet Sports Direct and had this confirmed by a source who attended the meeting. We have yet to receive confirmation of the outcome therefore can’t speculate.
Ashley has been confirmed by many as an initial investor of Greens era and this is indeed the first confirmed dealings with our club. Many media outlets have previously disclosed other initial investors who had sweeteners from Rangers after the promised £1 share price actually opened at 70p after the IPO in December 2012. No one has ever published any sweeteners to Ashley or Sports Direct.
On the 4th March 2013 media outlets publicised that Sports Direct had agreed a deal to obtain the rights to rename Ibrox. No price was quoted however the Daily Mail claimed it was “considerably less than £1m” and they quoted Green “we had Derek Llambias of NUFC (at a fans forum) sharing his experiences of how it helped that club”
It wasn’t until 3rd September 2014, with help from SoS, that the price of £1 (yes one pound) was made public by the Daily Record. Sports direct bought the naming rights of Ibrox for £1. Such was the fan reaction at the time and indeed SOS taking protests to SD stores across the UK, that SD soon announced they had handed back the naming rights to our ground.
The club nor SD announced at the time any deal to replace this and had us believe they had simply handed it back. We revealed weeks later that they actually swapped it for the rights of shirt sponsor which would give them free (£1cost) advertising on Rangers jerseys once the 32Red deal finishes at the end of this season or they can sell it and keep the profit if they pass the rights on to another sponsor. We believe this deal is for five years.
We soon after revealed to the public that they would take our club crests and redo the merchandise deal to give SD 75% of RangersRetail ltd instead of the 51/49% split that was weighed in the clubs favour.
Fans were lead to believe that the near 50/50 split of our merchandise would realise the club an equal split of profits. Wrong again. Sports Direct shares in RRL are class A shares while ours are class B shares. Class A shares allow double the voting rights of class B shares therefore SD decide and win the vote on distribution of monies from RRL. Last accounts showed we received circa £700k while they profited from £4m. SD also supply nearly all the products RRL sell therefore make profit before the items are even bought by RRL. What a deal for Ashley.
It now doesn’t actually matter if SD own 49 or 75% of RRL as they will decide or profit splits regardless.
Ashley provided loans to our club when offers of pure investment were on the table from others and we released emails to prove the shenanigans that were going on by releasing an email from Somers hours after the AGM of December 2014 that proved not on,y did some directors not act in a proper manner but Wallace Nash and Crighton were going to accept Kings investment although club statements at the time claimed no one could accept his offer due to lack of information from King.
Ashley obtain security over our training ground, Albion car park and edmiston house in return for these unrequited loans.
We had been concerned about others gaining our stadium for some time and made it the first of SoS three main aims years previous as we were convinced it would be the last act in the heist and even distributed a leaflet two years previous titled “the great stadium robbery” when Ashley attempted to claim Ibrox as security the penny dropped for the majority of our support and the backlash erupted. Protests and boycotts stepped up thereafter and fortunately the security was never passed.
Many fans boycott official merchandise while the deal is so lopsided but some just can’t see the benefit in a total boycott while the club attempt to negotiate a better deal.
Some may be unaware that a director of a PLC has a legal and moral obligation to inform administers when a company can’t afford to pay back loans and with Ashleys men controlling the boardroom and the attempts to secure our stadium with more unneeded loans then admin 2 would have been disastrous for our club with admin 2 almost certain and our merchandise,sponsorship, crests, stadium and all assets in the fat hands of Ashley.
Our fear was that was the end game and whoever took our club out of admin2 would have had almost no income and had to pay rental on our stadium and training ground BUT SOS are never right and only scaremonger, don’t we?…………………….
If any of the above information is incorrect, my names Craig Houston. I’ll no doubt hear from someone lawyers if it is. I won’t hold my breath waiting.
Homunculus,
Who do you believe? That post sounded like a convincing story although without addressing the bull from Dave King?
Another thing, one thing I kind of like about the new management at Ibrox (W&W not the board) they stay out of the politics, sometimes they say things which perpetuate the continuity myth but it’s not outrageous stuff like Ally.
Rangers supporters will have their own reasons to turn against Ally, mine for ever and a day will be the day when he called out ‘Who are these people?’ Knowing fine well who they were and stirring it up. Disgusting. He is now a nobody.
Karma.
Re Craig Houston’s statement
“Oh, now there’s only one kind of love that lasts. That’s unrequited love. It stays with you forever.”
– Woody Allen
Now what on earth is an unrequited loan ?
jimbo says:
Member: (83 comments)
August 29, 2015 at 11:16 pm
With regards to Ally McCoist, I could not agree more. He already knew who was involved, his club had agreed (along with everyone else) that these names should be kept confidential, so all he was doing was risking other people’s safety in order to rabble rouse. It was the despicable act of a coward.
With regards Craig Houston’s words. A lot of it is probably about right. Though most is hardly new. Interestingly the people on follow follow are hailing him for posting it, keep up the good work etc. One suspects that if it had been someone like PMCG doing the same then they would be revolting.
Feeling a bit like, let’s lighten up tonight – it’s Saturday – who is your second team in Scotland? Mine is Dundee Utd. Feeling pretty down (and a bit guilty) for them just now. 3rd. is Arbroath because I stayed at that caravan park along the road and had a few drinks in Tuttys Neuk. The first openly Gay Park in Scotland! 😆
The smileys on here are rubbish! That ‘thing’ above is supposed to be laughing but looks like a zombie.
Homunculus says:
Member: (224 comments)
August 29, 2015 at 10:43 pm
‘…THE DASTARDLY DEEDS OF ASHLEY…’
_______
I read what Mr Houston has to say.
God love the man, his “it became evident that a lot of bears didn’t have a complete grasp of what has went on at Ibrox over the past few years” is a masterpiece of understatement!
The factional infighting in RIFC/TRFC is so many-headed that I at least find it now not worth the effort of trying to distinguish between one faction and another.
In an odd kind of way, I am reminded (again)of that wonderful film “The Untouchables”
Who really cares which lot of ‘baddies’ kill another lot of ‘baddies?’ Certainly not I.( And I’m not at all supporting the view that a baseball bat is a useful tool for sorting out boardroom disagreements, by the way! :grin:)
But there’s damn few of us who who don’t care when the Police chief is on the take, or when a judge is complicit.
Whether Houston is a King’s man, bought and paid for, or a true believer in ‘Rangers’, or has a personal grudge against Ashley, or whatever,is a question that is relevant only to the supporters of TRFC, and of no more consequence to the rest of us than the brutal death by baseball bat of one enterprising gangster by another.
Our principal interest and focus is on the ‘Police Chief’ and ‘judge’:
The people, that is, who are supposed to enforce the rules, and deal with baddies who break those rules.
Homunculus says:
Member: (225 comments)
August 29, 2015 at 11:53 pm
‘….then they would be revolting.’
______
Would be? 😀
To continue John Clarks` theme.
I am trying to imagine the consequences of a sit down in the chippy under the arches at Glasgow cross between Mr Houston and Craig White and Campbell.
In the Godfather movie the trains rumble by and we are encouraged to identify with a murderer as he contemplates his actions. I am struggling to find empathy
with any of these would be diners.Of course what happens afterwards is years of infighting and violence before an accommodation is reached..c’est la vie.
upthehoops says:
Member: (834 comments)
August 29, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (386 comments)
August 29, 2015 at 6:44 pm
2. Rangers is only the tip of a very corrupt and self-enriching iceberg belonging to The Blazers – which for obvious reasons, The Blazers want swept under Daphne Broon’s rug.
==============================
I’d like to add a third option.
Scottish society is still not in a position where people can freely and openly challenge matters Ibrox without threats / intimidation.
___________________________________________________
upthehoops
I am sure you say that with genuine belief, but it is not supported by the facts. There is no mass intimidation going on that in any way impedes progress toward justice for other clubs in Scotland. There has been the usual spate of keyboard commandos, light-sabre rattlers and tub-thumpers.
The fear of reprisals by angry Rangers fans didn’t stop Peter Lawwell poking some public fun at them on more than one occasion – and it certainly wouldn’t stop companies chasing millions of lost revenue through the courts.
I think the “fear of violence” defence is one of the great untruths of this whole process. Regan started it with his social unrest speech which we have all derided on here. Yours is exactly the same argument. It is not the same situation that plagued Neil Lennon either. He was targeted for (in my view) sectarian reasons, but he was a focal point for those attacks which made him vulnerable. Half a dozen Scottish clubs chasing millions of pounds provide no such focus. Fear didn’t prevent Dundee United from going into battle with Rangers over more than one issue in the past few years. It didn’t stop HMRC officials from pursuing the tax case, it hasn’t stopped Mike Ashley from winding them up so tight that light could barely escape, and it hasn’t stopped Craig Whyte from continuing with his claim that he owns the business. It certainly isn’t stopping clubs seeking redress if they feel they have suffered financially due to Rangers’ misbehaviour.
People such as Stuart Cosgrove, Jim Spence, RTC (and unfortunately myself) have found themselves on ‘lists’ of enemies of Rangers. Some folk have attracted a bit of verbal abuse in public places, a wee bit of abusive texting or Tweeting (which is definitely not nice) but that is not unusual. Ask any footballer in Scotland.
One of the popular misconceptions we struggle with often on this blog is that somehow the Rangers support are predisposed to evil in a way the rest of us are not. Rangers fans are just like the rest of us – fans of their team and fans of their sport. They certainly attract a constituency of political thought that I’d rather be without, but there is no evidence of the kind of systematic, organised campaign of violence persuasive enough to prevent people seeking financial redress to the tune of millions of pounds (as in the case I set out earlier).
There may be a third option UtH, but it’s not that one.
gunnerb says:
Member: (49 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 1:07 am
‘…years of infighting and violence before an accommodation is reached…’
________
But, of course, that’s in the make-believe world of cinema.
in real life, our Football Authorities can reach an ‘accommodation’ in less time than it takes to say “5-way agreement”!
Well so much for my idea of being a bit more light hearted on a Sat. night. That’s why we och forget it.
Football Fan says:
Member: (165 comments)
August 29, 2015 at 7:52 pm (Edit)
Dk lodged a 20 million claim against RFC,it was based on the “deliberate non-disclosure by Sir David Murray of transactions that he had committed to on behalf of the club that were both risky and to the sole advantage of the Murray Group.”
The claim has not yet been ratified by the BDO and may well be contested.
_______________________________________________
So what’s to stop any club in Scotland from making a claim based on the
“deliberate non-disclosure by Rangers of contractual details pertaining to the registration of players, and the evasion of tax as admitted by Rangers in the FTT, that was to the sole and unfair advantage of Rangers”.
King’s reasons are not important as far as I am concerned – except that they are no more reasonable than those which could be put forward by anyone who fell foul of David Murray’s methods – including half the clubs in the country who lost more than King’s (relatively) piddling £20m as a consequence (not to mention the reputational damage done to the sport).
Big Pink,
I resent your accusation that I am not predisposed to evil. You have no way of knowing my evil capabilities, and I’m not particularly happy about you understating my evil abilities. I demand one million dollars in compensation.
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (388 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 1:24 am
=======================
I remember you doing the podcast with the late Turnbull Hutton. I’m not sure whether it was part of the subject matter but he went on record many times elsewhere regarding the threats Raith Rovers and one of his directors in particular received. He said the threats to torch Starks Park were described by the police as credible. In addition Alex Thompson wrote of the number of journalists who had been threatened, a claim supported by the NUJ. I was also told by someone I know and trust that a certain journalist from the BBC backed off from future exposes on Ibrox matters due to threats received. Remember too the intimidation that saw someone go to prison for comments towards the journalist Angela Haggerty, and inviting others to do likewise.
Generalisation is never good, and I believe the entire Rangers support contains many good people. I know many fine Rangers fans myself. However my opinion conflicts with yours that the element (and it’s probably very small) who are willing to engage in such behaviour have been quite successful in their aims. The Neil Lennon issue was not related to the Rangers saga but it was telling in many aspects. One particular aspect for me was the belief among some media people he brought it upon himself. This was also a view from some members of the public which was frequently allowed via radio phone ins. Yet a young man and his family were being moved by the police to safe houses in the middle of the night, and he needed constant bodyguards.
I respect your opinion, but stand firmly by my view that Scottish society has yet to evolve to a point where people can freely and openly challenge Ibrox matters without fear of threats and intimidation.
John clark @ 12.37am
upthehoops says:
Member: (835 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 6:46 am
If I remember correctly the Police visited the victims of the McCoist call to arms. They setup up regular checks on the QC’s house, drive past checks every 30 minutes in the initial stages. They provided him with advice on how to open mail, including setting up a room in his home specifically to do that.
It all sounds like what was considered to be credible threats to him and his family’s safety. By people who should know what they are talking about.
Alex Thomson blogged on the subject of the intimidation, including the above.
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/piercing-wall-silence-surrounding-rangers-fans/2891
It’s actually quite harrowing reading. Bearing in mind Mr Allan actually spoke on the record to Channel 4.
So to suggest that there aren’t credible threats from a minority of militant people, for whatever reason, simply isn’t true.
Don’t normally comment on these matters….
‘Scottish Society’ may well feel intimidated by a fear of violence. And it is shameful that the ‘social unrest ‘speech (Stewart Regan) was made as a method of persuading ‘Scottish Society ‘ that the Rangers liquidation merited special measures.
However, I see no evidence that ‘Scottish Society’ is threatening violence. The threat, to the extent it exists, comes from (as far as I can tell) from a small, vocal element of the Ibrox faithful.
The problem is that (as far as I can tell) a large majority of the Ibrox faithful seem to genuinely feel that their ‘club’ has been persecuted by the authorities. Because of the continuity myth, the supporters (en-masse) have never been able to mourn the loss of their club. They remain instead in angry denial.
It is up to ‘Scottish Society’ to root out the perpetrators of threats and actual violence. It is up to the football authorities to set the record straight. The two issues go hand in hand.
Threats and intimidation at the hands of Rangers’ ‘fans’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZBT8CjbjhY
upthehoops
As you say, we will have to agree to disagree about the level of the threat, although I do think it is worth pointing put that the social media age has brought about a much higher level of threatening behaviour.
Having been subjected to it myself in the past (not just from alleged Rangers fans incidentally) I can vouch for the fact that it can be very stressful and worrying. Happily, Paul McConville’s advice to me at the time was very insightful in that it didn’t come to anything, and as far as I know, no threats have ever been carried out.
I think it is worth having a discussion on the levels of perceived threatening behaviour here compared to the background noise that has existed surrounding the Old Firm over the years.
People in the public eye, footballers, journalists, politicians have always been subjected to angry threats, and of course there will always be the odd loony who follows through.
It is difficult to quantify it other than anecdotally, which is why we have to make own judgements (in many cases whether or not we come ‘out’ from the cover of anonymity).
However notwithstanding our difference of opinion, my point is that even if the instances you mention were the norm, that would not be enough to prevent the businessmen who run the Scottish game from chasing up money they think is owed. Not even close in my view.
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (389 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 10:15 am
However notwithstanding our difference of opinion, my point is that even if the instances you mention were the norm, that would not be enough to prevent the businessmen who run the Scottish game from chasing up money they think is owed. Not even close in my view.
=================
Have the SFA recieved any of the £250,000 ?what is keeping them chasing up this money?
If they have recieved any of it my apologies
Cluster One says:
Member: (274 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 10:34 am
Have the SFA recieved any of the £250,000 ?what is keeping them chasing up this money?
If they have recieved any of it my apologies
_____________________________________________________
CO
I don’t understand why you would have to offer apologies? I think we may be at cross purposes here.
EDIT:
Had another look at your message and I infer that your point is this;
The SFA haven’t got their money back because they are intimidated by the Rangers fans.
The original comment in this discussion (mine) was that the reason clubs were not chasing up money they were owed was that that the Rangers stuff was only superficial and that corruption in the game went much deeper. Also, fear of that exposure – not fear of fan intimidation – was behind the inaction.
The situation with the £250k doesn’t change my view on that, but merely reinforces it.
There is a bigger point surrounding the intimidation levels discussion. If we really believe that justice is only in the possession of those who shout and threaten loudest, and that inaction is justified on that basis, then we are accepting that the sport is fundamentally corrupt, because threats of violence – and not sporting excellence – is the yardstick for success.
If I accepted that, football would be dead to me. I wouldn’t be giving it any of my time, and less of my money or conversation.
However I am more hopeful than that. I don’t think football’s problems are caused by the fans of any club. I think they are caused by the people who run the clubs for their own financial self-interest, and those who make a living out of writing PR copy on their behalf: people who would need a training course to use a turnstile, whose friends and family think all season books are marked ‘complimentary’.
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (390 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 10:43 am
I think we may be at cross purposes here…..Agreed.
The point i was trying to make(and not very good,still to get morning coffee)
my point is that even if the instances you mention were the norm, that would not be enough to prevent the businessmen who run the Scottish game from chasing up money they think is owed.
————Are the SFA not owed £250,000 for a fine imposed on the ibrox club by LNS.And my point was what is keeping this business/Representitive from chasing up said fine.I know and hope that it not (instances you mention were the norm,)
But what is keeping them? have they said it had been paid.
Again i have not had my morning coffee
Cluster One says:
Member: (274 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 9:58 am
Have we become sanitised to this stuff.
It’s absolutely horrifying, what makes people think that behaviour like that is even remotely acceptable.
Cluster One says:
Member: (275 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 11:28 am
Are the SFA not owed £250,000 for a fine imposed on the ibrox club by LNS.And my point was what is keeping this business/Representitive from chasing up said fine.
================================================
Did the SFA ever get the £400k (I think!) compensation from RFC for Wattie leaving the national team & returning to Ibrox?
If they didn’t, shouldn’t they be on the BDO creditors’ list, or is that a “football debt” that RIFC/TRFC (Charlie Chou) should have paid?
Jimsie
I think that Sevco agreed to assume the football debts (as per the 5YA). The dispute arose when subsequent fines were imposed and the authorities said that under the 5YA TRFC were now liable.
TRFC disagreed.
Homunculus says:
Member: (227 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 11:34 am (Edit)
Cluster One says:
Member: (274 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 9:58 am
Have we become sanitised to this stuff.
It’s absolutely horrifying, what makes people think that behaviour like that is even remotely acceptable.
_____________________________________________________
I agree, but I don’t think anyone on here is arguing that it is; at least I hope not.
Wasn’t a part of the 5WA to do with Sevco forfeiting any right to commence legal proceedings against the SFA?
Maybe if we found out why such a provision exists then we may discover why neither the football authorities nor the clubs have taken any action whatsoever.
Something certainly stinks!
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (393 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 10:15 am
upthehoops
As you say, we will have to agree to disagree about the level of the threat, although I do think it is worth pointing put that the social media age has brought about a much higher level of threatening behaviour.
=================================
I think the level of threat is the only thing we are disagreeing about to be fair, and you do make a lot of good points in support of your own argument.
On the subject of clubs not chasing money owed by RFC. We have debated over the past month or so the King claim for a share of the money BDO manage to win for the creditor pot. No one seems able to understand why he should think he has a claim, or why it should be considered (though not yet agreed). Couldn’t it just be that the clubs that BP thinks should be putting in a claim are just like us? They would never think that such a claim could be possible! Do we know the clubs haven’t sought legal advice, anyway, and been told they would have no viable claim, even if they did think about it?
Also, King’s claim has no direct connection with football, it is purely a business matter, and not affected by the game’s rules. I personally cannot see how breaking the rules of football could lead to a claim against the liquidation pot, unless RFC broke the law of the land in their dodgy dealings. They may have, but only between themselves and HMRC, so far as we know.
I would imagine, that to have any viable claim, the clubs would first have to sue the SFA/SPL for incompetence or complicity, and this is against FIFA/UEFA rules, or perhaps make a complaint to Police Scotland in the limited hope that they might investigate it. We have to remember that breaking the rules of football doesn’t constitute a crime, though conspiracy to defraud would, nor does it create a simple civil case as it is unlikely that any precedent would exist.
We have to remember that King is a natural chancer, he’s made a good living from it. He also has/had a need to ingratiate himself to the TRFC support and add himself to the list of the ‘duped’, in fact to become the most duped of all. His claim has, after all, brought him much free publicity. The business men and women running our clubs have a different mindset to King, and wouldn’t look good if they set in motion an action to reduce the dividend to those genuine, stiffed, creditors.
If the clubs are, indeed, aware that they might have a claim against the creditor pot, is it not conceivable they’ve done the honourable thing in deciding football’s reputation has been damaged enough, and made no claim? Remember, too, that when claims were first invited, the £20m Collyer Bristow money was barely on the horizon, no club could have expected enough money to become available to make the effort worthwhile.
Like BP I don’t think the clubs are giving in to intimidation, though I think there may be some effect from that which has already been seen and from the ramping up of the ‘possibility’ by Regan, Doncaster and the MSM!
And while the members of the various boards might have had knowledge that could make them complicit in any shenanigans, that information might not have been made known to their clubs, and almost certainly not to the clubs not represented on the boards.
To be clear, my knowledge on the things I’ve written goes from little to non-existent, but I do think that any guilt attributable to the clubs, in what has transpired between the game’s governors and RFC, is the guilt of complacency and being too lazy/scared (not of physical intimidation) to question what goes on at Hampden.
Its clear that Mr King’s 40 odd convictions make him a rank amateur in the tax dodging stakes. perhaps he should engage the services of Tony Blair http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11328929/Tony-Blair-cuts-his-tax-bill-despite-another-bumper-year.html ? Then again RIFC couldn’t afford Blair’s coffee bill.
I make no apologies for singling out Blair, when former Prime Ministers dodge tax on an industrial scale, it demonstrates with absolute clarity, just how low the chances of meaningful reform of company & tax law actually are.
It was the SPL who levied the £250k fine. The SPFL withheld that amount in broadcast fees in December 2014 to repay the debt. There was some faux outrage at the time; but TRFC took no action, that I am aware of, to get the broadcast fees.
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (393 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 10:15 am
I think it is worth having a discussion on the levels of perceived threatening behaviour here compared to the background noise that has existed surrounding the Old Firm over the years.
====================================
I think what made things substantially different was when Stratchlyde Police, Special Branch and Anti-Terrorist Police set up surveillance to protect someones home, and when they give him advice on how to protect himself and his family from what they describe as credible threats.
The club may disagree with things like this. Maybe they should have told their manager that, before he made his disgusting call to arms. On Rangers TV, where it was clearly a conscious decision, rather than some live knee jerk reaction.
When the NUJ deal with over 30 referrals from their members, and the rep describes it as being different from the normal level of things he deals with.
When a systematic attack on Miss Haggerty is organised, openly, online. Where the listeners are basically asked to harass her. In addition her private details are published online, for whatever reason.
Just so we are clear none of that is anything to do with “the old firm”. None of it involves Celtic in any way as far as I am aware. Neither would I describe it as “perceived”. It all happened.
Homunculus says:
Member: (228 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 12:58 pm
________________________________
You clearly feel very strongly about it. I still disagree with you though in respect of the level of threat that exists today.
Repugnant as all of these things are, they are not in my view even close to persuading clubs to give up on millions of pounds of lost opportunities. That is still the point – in fact the only real point I am making.
AJ HAS addressed those points and offered alternative explanations. Much food for thought in there as well.
Refereeing issues to one side, another vry good performance from Rangers today. Warburton demonstrating once again just how bloody awful a football manager the Head Gardiner actually was, he has a future as a dog walker though, excellent whistling skills.
HirsutePursuit says: August 30, 2015 at 12:38 pm
It was the SPL who levied the £250k fine. The SPFL withheld that amount in broadcast fees in December 2014 to repay the debt. There was some faux outrage at the time; but TRFC took no action, that I am aware of, to get the broadcast fees.
=================================
Rangers indicated that they would take the matter to arbitration according to this article on 15 Jan 2015.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13197137.Rangers_vow_to_take_EBT_fine_to_arbitration_after_losing_SFA_appeal/
A club statement on Wednesday read: “Further to the announcement on 17 December 2014, Rangers Football Club Limited lost the appeal with the judicial panel of the Scottish FA on 13 January 2015 in respect of the EBT Commission fine of £250,000 levied on RFC 2012 PLC (previously The Rangers Football Club plc) (in liquidation). The club will now take the matter to arbitration.”
Oddly, the statement referred to seems to be missing from Rangers news archives on their website.
SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster says League sponsor Ladbrokes offering Bets on the potential sackings of managers , in this instance Gary Locke and Ronnie Deila “goes with the territory ” of doing a deal with a Bookmaker.
Same as the 5WA really . If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.
Allyjambo says:
Member: (1186 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 12:30 pm
On the subject of clubs not chasing money owed by RFC. We have debated over the past month or so the King claim for a share of the money BDO manage to win for the creditor pot. No one seems able to understand why he should think he has a claim, or why it should be considered (though not yet agreed). Couldn’t it just be that the clubs that BP thinks should be putting in a claim are just like us? They would never think that such a claim could be possible! Do we know the clubs haven’t sought legal advice, anyway, and been told they would have no viable claim, even if they did think about it?
Also, King’s claim has no direct connection with football, it is purely a business matter, and not affected by the game’s rules. I personally cannot see how breaking the rules of football could lead to a claim against the liquidation pot, unless RFC broke the law of the land in their dodgy dealings. They may have, but only between themselves and HMRC, so far as we know.
I would imagine, that to have any viable claim, the clubs would first have to sue the SFA/SPL for incompetence or complicity, and this is against FIFA/UEFA rules, or perhaps make a complaint to Police Scotland in the limited hope that they might investigate it. We have to remember that breaking the rules of football doesn’t constitute a crime, though conspiracy to defraud would, nor does it create a simple civil case as it is unlikely that any precedent would exist.
We have to remember that King is a natural chancer, he’s made a good living from it. He also has/had a need to ingratiate himself to the TRFC support and add himself to the list of the ‘duped’, in fact to become the most duped of all. His claim has, after all, brought him much free publicity. The business men and women running our clubs have a different mindset to King, and wouldn’t look good if they set in motion an action to reduce the dividend to those genuine, stiffed, creditors.
If the clubs are, indeed, aware that they might have a claim against the creditor pot, is it not conceivable they’ve done the honourable thing in deciding football’s reputation has been damaged enough, and made no claim? Remember, too, that when claims were first invited, the £20m Collyer Bristow money was barely on the horizon, no club could have expected enough money to become available to make the effort worthwhile.
Like BP I don’t think the clubs are giving in to intimidation, though I think there may be some effect from that which has already been seen and from the ramping up of the ‘possibility’ by Regan, Doncaster and the MSM!
And while the members of the various boards might have had knowledge that could make them complicit in any shenanigans, that information might not have been made known to their clubs, and almost certainly not to the clubs not represented on the boards.
To be clear, my knowledge on the things I’ve written goes from little to non-existent, but I do think that any guilt attributable to the clubs, in what has transpired between the game’s governors and RFC, is the guilt of complacency and being too lazy/scared (not of physical intimidation) to question what goes on at Hampden.
==========================
For the blog as a whole because it raises an interesting point for me.
What if shareholders in a club thought their share value had been affected negatively by a decision taken by another club to misrepresent their tax status in a declaration to UEFA that gave that club access to CL money that a truthful statement in terms of what the rules required might otherwise have prevented?
What if it could be shown that the national association were either negligent or, based on strong circumstantial evidence, were complicit in the way they monitored the truth of that declaration?
I think such a situation takes it out of the realm of football rules and into criminal behaviour, most likely fraud but I’m a bit woolly on the definition.
Would shareholders in a club, but not the club itself be justified in suing the national association and the club in question?
In such a situation you might be persuaded that BPs second option re The Blazers was the more likely, I mean why would it take three years to be told rules were properly followed if they were?
I ask because if the rules were not followed court is where this is heading and even the threat of it could create a transparent and accountable SFA, something I think everyone with an interest in the long term health of Scottish football are interested in and would support.
Under such a governance culture RFC would not have gone to the wall.
“Would shareholders in a club, but not the club itself be justified in suing the national association and the club in question?”
Interesting take on shareholder activism
Suspect that the cause of action would be against the board of the shareholders’ company, as the board’s failure to pursue the matter could mean they are not acting in their shareholders’ interests. Especially given the co-operative nature of football.
Happy to be proved wrong though!
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (394 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 1:35 pm
Yes, I feel very strongly about it. What Ally McCoist did was unjustified and deliberate. The fact that it was done on Rangers TV means to me that the club either approved his actions or at the very least chose to ignore them. Neither is acceptable. Who knows what might have happened if the Police hadn’t taken the action they did.
I also feel that the threats against Raith Rovers, and the fact that the Chairman was informed that people had been put in place to torch the stadium and that threats were made to it’s director, including mentioning his family an absolute disgrace.
I think that the co-ordinated attacks on Angela Haggerty, by Rangers supporters, online and in the open were a disgrace. It also indicated to me that they thought they could get away with it. That is where we are, that people think they can do what they did (watch the channel 4 report and listen to what was said) and get away with it.
All over football.
You seem to think the threats were overstated. The Police, the NUJ and the victims don’t seem to agree. I’m with them, what they were put through was totally unacceptable.
Here’s the other thing, if other people were intimidated into not taking actions they would normally have taken because of that intimidation then there’s every chance we don’t know about it. For the very reason that they were intimidated and made decisions based on that intimidation. We only know about the cases which were reported, but for me they are more than enough.
I’ll join the “we can agree to disagree” camp.
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (394 comments)
August 29, 2015 at 12:55 am
“Anyone of our legal types who is able to offer any advice, we would be happy to hear from you privately.”
——————————–
I’m not a legal type but I recall Alzipratu offering advice on this a few weeks back. There was a conversation about slander and defamation at the time and the suggestion was that you couldn’t realistically protect yourself from defamation action.
I think the advice might have been to have a company not limited by shares but limited by guarantee. All a bit vague for me but I think they did make the offer to you to contact them if you wanted any advice on commercial incorporation.
scapaflow says:
Member: (1407 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 4:50 pm (Edit)
“Would shareholders in a club, but not the club itself be justified in suing the national association and the club in question?”
Interesting take on shareholder activism
Suspect that the cause of action would be against the board of the shareholders’ company, as the board’s failure to pursue the matter could mean they are not acting in their shareholders’ interests. Especially given the co-operative nature of football.
Happy to be proved wrong though!
======================
I think that would only be the case if the Board of the shareholders club refused to pursue a resolution put to it before an AGM that The Board had said was not necessary to subsequently have been demonstrated as very necessary.
I doubt they are that daft.
I’m counting on it.
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1386 comments)
August 29, 2015 at 6:49 am
“But out comes Craig Whyte again, claiming Sevco 5088 own the assets, which, by the odd logic used in this story, means that Sevco 5088 could be the real newco (if assets included ‘the history’ :irony: )”
—————————–
Banquo’s ghost.
Plot twist extraordinaire.
Just when you think that particular corpse has been laid to rest, out it creeps like some dreadful bogey-man. The Herald article is full of detail and shows much insight. What a contrast to every story that has ever been written in the travails of these events.
One thing I didn’t quite get; BDO successfully sue Collyer Bristow for £24M. Where did that come from? I thought Collyer Bristow were tied up with the Jerome Pension Fund but I thought it (Jerome) only had a value of £3-4M. How did BDO manage to get £24M. Presume this is damages but can’t understand why it is so disproportionate to the value that was originally in dispute (Jerome). At the risk of opening a can of worms and at the risk of showing my ignorance to the very well briefed Herald journalist, I’d be happy to be enlightened.
easyJambo says:
Member: (743 comments)
August 29, 2015 at 10:41 am
“The other impact of the legal action now is that King will not, as yet, have received any dividend from BDO in respect of his £20M claim as a creditor.”
————————————–
The sound of a nail being firmly struck on the head.
easyJambo says:
Member: (743 comments)
August 29, 2015 at 11:18 am
“Re the Law Financial claim against the Oldco – I wonder if the claim marks the end of the Newco’s “contingent liability” in respect of the “Letter before claim”.”
——————————–
I thought the LBC was the contingent liability.
The LBC was a procedural action required in advance to bringing the claim to court. The LBC detailed the nature of the claim to those against whom the claim was being made (Charles Green, Imran Ahmed?)and was necessary to provide an opportunity of a response and negotiation obviating litigation.
The LBC comprised the grounds on which any case might be pursued and the ownership of this claim by Worthington or Law Financial I’d imagine entitles them to execute such a claim.
As you astutely point out, there was a time bar on the claim that is approaching so if the claim was ever going to be made then it makes sense to carry out some necessary actions now.
The LBC contains the essence of the claim and its executive falling into others hands makes it the contingent liability for me. If Sevco 5088 have some sort of claim then is that not what has been represented as a contingent liability. Continuance of legal proceedings in this matter will not remove the contingent liablity.
I’m probably picking you up wrong.
A propos the discussion on intimidation,I wonder whether the change of mind of the Emirates Arena landlords about letting out a room to SFM would have been in any way related to fears that there might be some possibility of the unwelcome attention of those who violently object to this blog?
Or to some other ‘political’ rather than financial objection by the landlords, who, I gather, are ,ultimately Glasgow City council?
Homunculus says:
Member: (229 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 5:13 pm
Big Pink says:
Moderator: (394 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 1:35 pm
You seem to think the threats were overstated.
_____________________________________________
No I don’t, nor did I imply any such thing. I also never implied that those threats were ‘perceived’
If you inferred either, then I urge you to read what I said again.
Re Incorporation for SFM
I’m sure the mods will have sussed out the options, but for everyone else, here’s my take on it.
Charitable or not?
If not seeking charitable status, the options are a company limited by guarantee or a community interest company (CIC).
One possible advantage of being a CIC is some grant funding may be possible if there are elements of promoting a social enterprise model (which might be compatible with a long term view on The SFM’s “community” links – a community of interest for example).
If the plan is to seek charitable status, the options are
Company limited by guarantee with charitable status, or a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (SCIO).
Both will need to meet the charity test for how the organisation will deliver activities that meet charitable outcomes, e.g advancement of education or sport.
The SCIO option allows two models – single or two tier.
The two tier involves a larger membership electing a smaller number of trustees to be on the board. The single tier requires all members to be trustees / board members.
All of the above options gives the directors / trustees limited liability (although as we have seen on this site, this does not put directors above the law in the event of criminal activities!)
And that concludes the introduction to incorporation.
John Clark says:
Member: (1146 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 7:01 pm
A propos the discussion on intimidation, I wonder whether the change of mind of the Emirates Arena landlords about letting out a room to SFM would have been in any way related to fears that there might be some possibility of the unwelcome attention of those who violently object to this blog?
Or to some other ‘political’ rather than financial objection by the landlords, who, I gather, are ,ultimately Glasgow City council?
______________________________________________________
Tris did think that there ‘may’ have been a reaction to the SFM mission, but perhaps on commercial basis. In much the same way as one daily paper have advised a Scottish club to remove their logo from a JV (to disassociate the club from the paper and sell more goods) 🙂
He did admit to me that this may have been his disappointment talking and it subsequently transpired that the developments had a more mundane explanation.
FYI, Glasgow City Council were not a concerned party.
redlichtie says:
Member: (285 comments)
August 29, 2015 at 11:43 am
“My reading of this is that they are now effectively saying that the assets owned by RIFC/TRFC are not encumbered by a claim from them/Whyte (unless they are also pursuing a parallel claim against RIFC as noted above) as they have a different claim against the company in liquidation.”
————————–
I get that. if Worthington/Law can satsify their claim on RFC(IL), then their litigation would end and there could be no claim on Newco Assets. Should any successful claim however not be satisfied by the assets to which it is attached? I can’t figure out how Worthington/Law could go after Oldco if their claim is on the assets of Newco. The basis of the Sevco 5088 claim is that the transfer of the option to buy the business and assets of RFC(IL) was illegally transferred to Sevco Scotland. I can’t see where a claim against Oldco would arise from.
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (523 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 6:30 pm
Ha! And there was me trying to avoid specific cases
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (522 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 4:38 pm
I’d love to think that if there’s any illegality been going in Scottish football that those responsible will be held accountable. I’m not sure, though, that lack of action against those involved in the shenanigans around the demise of RFC by other clubs indicates their involvement in those deeds. I doubt, very much, that anyone outside of a tight little circle will have been a party to any such deeds, for that is the only way to keep them secret. I’d be surprised if there aren’t a few club officials who have strong suspicions, but what should they do? Go to the media? One media man took up the banner of justice and made a very good expose documentary – that looked like being a series of documentaries, but for some reason stopped digging after two episodes when; well, we’ll probably never know how far he’d got!
One of the things about challenging the big boys and whistle blowing is you need to know the support is there and that your suspicions will be treated seriously. A bit of dog whistling and ramping up the fear factor can help quell even the most suspicious of minds, whether planned that way or not.
To sum up the case for the defence of the clubs: unless we know a crime has been committed, or that they (or any of them) knew about it; unless we know that anything that has happened might lead to the clubs having a claim against the RFC creditor pot, or if there is, that the clubs might reasonably be expected to have been aware of their right to claim; unless we have good reason to believe that the football governors passed on information, gained at dinners and other informal meeting and phone calls with Craig Whyte, to the clubs or their representatives; then I don’t think it will further the aims of the blog to be critical of the clubs for not acting in a way that would suggest they are innocent by suing the sports governing bodies or petitioning for a share of the creditor pot.
I seem to have gone off track from Auldheid’s post, though hope what I say is found worthwhile 🙄
On Auldheid’s post:
‘What if shareholders in a club thought their share value had been affected negatively by a decision taken by another club to misrepresent their tax status in a declaration to UEFA that gave that club access to CL money that a truthful statement in terms of what the rules required might otherwise have prevented?’
I think there can only be one Scottish club that would fall into the category of having shareholders affected in this way, and they have acted accordingly, and very well in my opinion. Only time will tell if they are successful, and if they are, only time will tell if something that can be prosecuted is uncovered. In that event, the foundations of Scottish football could be rocked much harder, shattered even, than they have been by the demise, and the EBT dirt, of Rangers Football Club!
As John Clark keeps alluding to – the biggest crime is the cover-up and lies in favour of one, historically favoured, club to the detriment of all the other, historically un-favoured, clubs! Even if the others are too gullible to realise it.
Homunculus says:
Member: (229 comments)
August 29, 2015 at 12:23 pm
“The big question is, if such a deed exists who from Sevco 5088 authorised it.”
————————-
Sevco 5088 board membership fluctuated for a time (May 9 2012 was a critical date I anecdotally recall), prior to the asset purchase agreement and it may be that Charles Green was the only board member for a brief period. I think the story may be that at this time as sole Director, the novation was made. CG may not have had authority to make such a novation. I think this is the kernel of the alleged dispute.
Could all be a massive squirrel.
Castofthousands says:
Member: (303 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 7:35 pm
9th May is indeed significant
Perhaps the thought is that Oldco (via its administrators) illegally did a switcheroo between the two Sevco’s and now Worthington want that remedied. This then might force BDO int o looking to reverse the original sale. I really can’t see that happening. They can’t possibly have anything to do with the floating charge though as that was never anything to do with either of the Sevco companies.
Allyjambo says:
Member: (1187 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 7:24 pm
Not sure I agree that only one club may have suffered a loss. Each member club of the SPL owned one share, it was, like the SPFL, essentially a Joint Venture. If one member of a joint venture enriched itself by “cheating”, then it is at least arguable, that all the other members of the JV would lose out as a result. How much each member lost could very well vary, but, losses of some sort there would surely be?
That. I believe, relates to CBs involvement in the CW takeover. Because there was alleged ‘sleight of hand’ with respect to ‘money in escrow’ an alternative takeover bid that was supposedly worth £25m (Paul M involved so probably OPM) did not go ahead. So, yes, damages. Of course, I could be a million miles away
The Jerome moneys and the Collyer Bristow liablity were actually two different issues. However brought together by BDO in one case. Linked by the involvement of Gary Withey acting I think as company sec? for the fledgling Sevco at that time. Withey being a CB employee.
At the time of the case hearing CB were in dispute with their professional indemnity insurers. They sued them and won. Subsequently handed over many many millions via that insurer to litigant clients BDO being just one.
In short they wished the issue settled and gone. Insurers paid BDO did a good job.
DCK wont see anything of it I am sure.
Cluster One says:
Member: (275 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 10:34 am
“Have the SFA recieved any of the £250,000 ?”
————————————
I take it you are referring to LNS punishment.
I thought the SFA/SPL arrested this from Rangers (IL) competition winnings 2011/12.
scapaflow says:
Member: (1409 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 8:29 pm
Allyjambo says:
Member: (1187 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 7:24 pm
Not sure I agree that only one club may have suffered a loss. Each member club of the SPL owned one share, it was, like the SPFL, essentially a Joint Venture. If one member of a joint venture enriched itself by “cheating”, then it is at least arguable, that all the other members of the JV would lose out as a result. How much each member lost could very well vary, but, losses of some sort there would surely be?
_________________________
I was referring to Auldheid’s post and the shareholders of the only club, in my opinion, who might have suffered a financial loss – reduced share-price, and/or reduced dividend, as a result of any shenanigans between RFC and the football governors.
Auldheid said the following (part of his post):
‘What if shareholders in a club thought their share value had been affected negatively by a decision taken by another club to misrepresent their tax status in a declaration to UEFA that gave that club access to CL money that a truthful statement in terms of what the rules required might otherwise have prevented?’
I may be wrong, of course, and the shareholders of another Scottish football club might have the prospect of increased share value/dividends.
You are, of course, correct in what you say regarding the interests of all the clubs.
Edit: I should have added that my understanding of what Auldheid wrote was that the shareholders might act where the board members are prepared to sit on their thumbs!
AJ, yeah Your post was clear, i’m just not sure I agree that no other companies/clubs/celestial entities lost either real or potential shareholder value.
I stand by my view that in the event of a board. “Sitting on its thumb” that the shareholders cause of action would be against their board.. I think reso 12’s genius was in putting the Celtic board in a position where they had to act, or face the prospect of it going to court. I suspect that this case being heard in court, is something the signatories, & those who approved, the 5 WA would seek to avoid at almost any cost
scottc says:
Member: (218 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 8:24 pm
“Perhaps the thought is that Oldco (via its administrators) illegally did a switcheroo between the two Sevco’s and now Worthington want that remedied.”
———————–
Oldco were the administrators at the time.
Not sure if the Crown Office would be pleased or displeased to see such detailed discussion of a matter ancillary to the upcoming criminal proceedings appearing here. Since we are just making fair comment of that very succinct Herald Article then I don’t think we can be accused of acting prejudically.
Sevco 5088’s primary focus was an interest in the asset sale of RFC(IL). I think the Sale and Purchase agreement names Sevco 5088 as beneficiary.
I cannot see how this squabble over the ownership of assets of the Newco has any bearing over Oldco. Humunculus has alluded to the floating charge and there may be a route that way. Sevco 5088 didn’t exist at the time of Rangers administration announcement on 14th February 2012.
scottc says:
Member: (218 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 8:37 pm
” I could be a million miles away”
———————————–
Equally you could be spot on. Still seems a rather generous compensation for preventing a deal happening when the sum originally at risk was £3-4M. Collyer Bristow must have had some very generous insurers.
All this is predicated on the credibility of Paul Murray’s £24M bid, whose veracity, I personally, have no reason to call into doubt. All fair comment you see: A little light hearted interjection to lift the mood of a dense subject matter. 😛
Would there not be more than Scottish clubs at a loss due to RFC being on steroids and being in European competition when perchance they shouldn’t have been ? I don’t know their results but am assuming they won a game or two ?
Castofthousands says:
Member: (306 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 9:45 pm
As I said earlier there are two distinct issues here, one relates to “Oldco” and one relates to “Newco”.
In essence
1, Who is entitled to the proceeds of the liquidation, that is where the floating charge comes in. Was there a secured creditor and are they entitled to get paid before anyone else.
2, Who was entitled to buy those assets, and use them to form a new club. The deal with the administrator was for Sevco 5088 to buy those assets. However they were actually sold to Sevco Scotland. On what basis did that happen.
In my view the floating charge has nothing to do with the “Newco” situation. Who was entitled to buy the assets and form the new club has nothing to do with the “Oldco” liquidation and who gets paid.
They are separate matters, albeit Craig Whyte (or people he has transferred his “rights” to) is trying to benefit from both.
Castofthousands says:
Member: (306 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 9:45 pm
‘… All fair comment you see: A little light hearted interjection to lift the mood of a dense subject matter.’
_________
I agree: nothing to fear frae the Crown Office or the Sheriff Court!( I hope!)
I am enjoying the kind of retro-visit that’s being made to the cast of characters and events, some more puzzling than others.
I think there’s a cracker of a film to be made in due course. Wonder who has the film rights? 😈 Saw no mention of them in the 5WA: pity there wasn’t some Head of commercial or media marketing mogul working for the SPL. What’s that you say? There was, and he’s now gone to TRFC?
On the subject of Reso 12. The more I think about it the more convinced I am that it presents the past & present boards of Celtic, SFA, SPL & SPFL with a number of Operational Risks & Issues, in the Financial, Reputational & Organisational domains. I am sure the MBAs among the Excecs will be very aware that “Operational Risks & Issues can destroy your business”
Reso 12 is a very old and very sweaty case of gelignite under the foundations of Scottish Football. No one knows if it will explode, or where & how much damage it will cause.
It really comes down to how resolute the resolutioners are, more power to their elbow, as they may be the last hope for change.
Castofthousands says:
Member: (304 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 8:48 pm
——————————————————-
28 February 2013 10:34 GMT
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/215764-rangers-oldco-fined-250000-by-spl-commission-but-club-retains-titles/
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/552062/Rangers-Fail-Appeal-EBT-250k-fine
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/9645014/rangers-to-go-to-arbitration-after-sfa-upholds-163250000-ebt-penalty
14/01/15 5:11pm
Rangers to go to arbitration after SFA upholds £250,000 employee benefit trust scheme penalty.
Re Collyer Bristow
http://www.legalbusiness.co.uk/index.php/lb-blog-view/3255-an-excellent-outcome-for-the-creditors-collyer-bristow-makes-24m-settlement-over-rangers-fc-advice
21 November 2014 10:54 by Sarah Downey
Collyer Bristow Litigation
The liquidators for Scottish football club Rangers have confirmed a £24m settlement has been paid by City firm Collyer Bristow over fees they received in relation to the club’s controversial 2011 takeover.
The action was originally pursued by administrator Duff and Phelps, which was called in to run the oldco on February 14, 2012. It claimed that former owner Mr Whyte and his lawyer Gary Withey, who worked for Collyer Bristow, had participated in the “deception” of board members in the ill-fated May 2011 takeover.
On Tuesday, BDO confirmed it was pressing ahead with the action, while it is also counter-claiming against Merchant Turnaround, a firm that Mr Whyte has a substantial shareholding in through his British Virgin Islands-based Liberty Capital Ltd.
—————————
John Clark says:
Member: (1147 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 10:54 pm
Wonder who has the film rights?
————————————————
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/craig-whyte-sells-rangers-book-and-film-rights-1-2898764
The statement continued: “It has also been agreed that, pursuant to the agreement certain other related rights, assets and causes of action will be transferred to the Law Financial Group or directly to Worthington.
“Those assets include the Book, Film and Television rights to the two takeovers of The Rangers Football Club in 2011 and 2012 as it relates to Craig Whyte.
“It is intended that these rights will be commercialised in due course.”
Having just watched Dportscene does anyone else think there is a need for s blog or podcast with someone in the refereeing fraternity!!
scapaflow says:
Member: (1411 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 10:54 pm
‘…Reso 12 is a very old and very sweaty case of gelignite ..’
__________
Calls to mind the 1950s movie ” the Wages of Fear”, which is the only movie I ever heard my dad ever enthuse over.
For some reason, I had thought that that was one of Humphrey Bogart’s, but, having just looked it up, it seems not to have been. 🙁
Anyway, it conjures up a lovely image of our ‘Football Authorities’ being in the cab of a lorry , with a load of unstable nitro-glycerine, hurtling down a precipitous mountain road in Peru ( or maybe the Alps!), with the brakes gone or failing,expecting at any moment that the nitro will blow..
John Clark says:
Member: (1148 comments)
August 30, 2015 at 11:54 pm
Its a great movie, event without Bogey.
The Man in the White Suit is probably a better metaphor for how I fear all our efforts will end 😥