“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.
Smugas says:
Member: (936 comments)
September 2, 2015 at 7:36 pm
Homunculus says:
Member: (240 comments)
September 2, 2015 at 7:40 pm
There appears to be two seperate, but related, sets of indictments
First relates to the 2011 takeover with Withy, Grier, Whithouse & Clark charged
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30084830
The second set seems to relate to the asset sale With Green, Whyte, Whitehouse charged, with Clark arrested but no court appearance yet.
Be interesting to see if the cases remain split, or if the authorities elect to have one case covering both indictments.
This thing could yet grow more arms and legs.
Any Rangers fans who think this is a good day for RIFC or Rangers is delusional, but what’s new
rougvielovesthejungle says:
September 2, 2015 at 7:15 pm
————
corsica says:
20/07/2012 at 11:07 pm
Well that’s that, I have now officially retired and all thanks to this blog!
Right, enough moping‚ Wee question for you all: what do Charles Green, Craig Whyte, Dave King and Andrew Ellis all have in common?
That’s right they all own property and have investments in the Republic of South Africa. What a coincidence, eh?
What’s that I hear? You would like another coincidence? Well, okay, how about they have all at various times threatened to sue each other and other players in this farce but curiously not a single writ has been delivered. Ask your uncle Max (Clifford) about that little deflection trick.
Another coincidence? How about they were all in Switzerland this week? As my grandson’s favourite comedian would say ”what are the chances of that?”
————
There is a major demonstration of invincible ignorance among the denizens of the sweary site. Given that hell mend them.
If they are rejoicing today they are more myopic than Mr Magoo.
Mentalists the lot of them
Apropos of nothing at all
here’s Section 190 of the Companies Act 2006, especially for any Rangers fans out there who are celebrating
“90 Substantial property transactions: requirement of members’ approval
(1)A company may not enter into an arrangement under which—
(a)a director of the company or of its holding company, or a person connected with such a director, acquires or is to acquire from the company (directly or indirectly) a substantial non-cash asset, or
(b)the company acquires or is to acquire a substantial non-cash asset (directly or indirectly) from such a director or a person so connected,
unless the arrangement has been approved by a resolution of the members of the company or is conditional on such approval being obtained.
For the meaning of “substantial non-cash asset” see section 191.
(2)If the director or connected person is a director of the company’s holding company or a person connected with such a director, the arrangement must also have been approved by a resolution of the members of the holding company or be conditional on such approval being obtained.
(3)A company shall not be subject to any liability by reason of a failure to obtain approval required by this section.
(4)No approval is required under this section on the part of the members of a body corporate that—
(a)is not a UK-registered company, or
(b)is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another body corporate.
(5)For the purposes of this section—
(a)an arrangement involving more than one non-cash asset, or
(b)an arrangement that is one of a series involving non-cash assets,
shall be treated as if they involved a non-cash asset of a value equal to the aggregate value of all the non-cash assets involved in the arrangement or, as the case may be, the series.
(6)This section does not apply to a transaction so far as it relates—
(a)to anything to which a director of a company is entitled under his service contract, or
(b)to payment for loss of office as defined in section 215 (payments requiring members’ approval).”
#switcheroo
scapaflow says:
Member: (1421 comments)
September 2, 2015 at 8:07 pm
I agree that there are two separate sets of events and that is why there has been a gap between the detentions, albeit that in some instances the same people were detained and arrested / charged again, or so it is reported.
It is possible that COPFS will try the people allegedly involved in both at the same time. In fact it may be the easiest way to attempt to get a fair trial. Can you imagine if the 2011 sale / administration was tried and a result obtained, then trying to have another trial re the administration / sale of assets / liquidation * without it being prejudiced by the previous trial. It would be a reporting nightmare.
*I chose the order of the events deliberately.
Homunculus says:
Member: (241 comments)
September 2, 2015 at 8:24 pm
No argument here, though in all honesty I was only semi-tongue in cheek with my Camp Zeist crack
Jury selection every bit as problematic as reporting and social media comment
This case may make the text books for more than one reason
With CW back in Scotland.
May 01, 2013 · The Scottish Football Association takes former Rangers owner Craig Whyte to court over unpaid fines of £200,000.
Anyone know how that got on?
If you need a bit more hilarity Spiers has just called the Son of Struth a nutter. Cue meltdown
Cluster One says:
Member: (278 comments)
September 2, 2015 at 8:55 pm
With CW back in Scotland.
May 01, 2013 · The Scottish Football Association takes former Rangers owner Craig Whyte to court over unpaid fines of £200,000.
Anyone know how that got on?
==============================
Not seen anything since.
And ‘The SFA Ltd’ accounts would not show a contingent asset either, to reflect any possible future payment.
Must admit, when the fine was announced I didn’t expect Whyte to pay, nor the SFA to actively chase up either.
It just seemed like an effective barrier to Whyte from being involved in Scottish football again: i.e. if he did, then this outstanding fine would have to be paid first.
And would the bold Whyte have any assets left in Scotland/UK to seize ?
scapaflow says:
Member: (1424 comments)
September 2, 2015 at 9:15 pm
If you need a bit more hilarity Spiers has just called the Son of Struth a nutter. Cue meltdown
==========================
A ‘bottler’ calling someone a ‘nutter’ you say…?
Mr. Spiers tumbled from the moral high ground – permanently – several years ago.
Someone should tell him… :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:
jimbo says:
September 2, 2015 at 3:01 pm
I know that there is such a concept as ‘goodwill’. Can anyone more experienced tell me, can that in any shape or form include ‘history’
——————————————–
In my view buying “History” was totally spurious.
In accounting terms goodwill is the difference between the value of Assets bought and the price paid, it is a figure which balances the Balance sheet.
Businesses have Intangible assets such as trademarks, licences etc. These have a future value to the business and most importantly can be verified and protected based on copyright and contract.
I have never heard of History being transferred, how can it be, it is past events.
If I approached the Estate of Joe Frasier and offered to buy his history and they agreed; I still could not claim to have beaten Muhammad Ali.
Charles Green made it up and must have been shocked that he wasn’t challenged.
He specifically bought the assets. There was no Goodwill only Negative Goodwill in any case.
Negative Goodwill is very interesting; It is Financial fairy dust, It inflates your assets and inflates profits. In Sevco case losses were reduced by £16m (from memory). I also discovered that Rangers accounts had benefitted some years ago from Negative Goodwill.
I hope that we get some clarity from the court cases.
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.
On the “negative goodwill” the figure released to income in the 2013 accounts was £20,465,000.
It is explained thusly.
Yes that does indeed say
“The negative goodwill release of £20.5 million is a credit to the income statement based on a calculation showing the fair value of net assets acquired of £27.2 million and a consideration of £6.7 million.”
So we have the drama of the ‘perp walk’ of the accused, and foaming at the mouth of some TRFC supporters: probably the same supporters who feted the arrival of both Whyte & Green at Ibrox – and then subsequently refused to listen to those “Rangers haters”.
Maybe the legal eagles here can confirm or otherwise, but this type of white collar crime can take forever to bring to trial, costs a fortune, can become very complex for a jury to understand – and conviction rates are low, [off the top of my head I am using the Serious Fraud Office as a comparable reference].
IMO, this is a mere sideshow, [albeit an interesting sideshow !], as TRFC still has a fundamentally flawed cash flow position.
And this latest, high profile media circus is not helping TRFC’s image one bit: it is mere confirmation that the brand is still highly toxic.
Den
IP is a fascinating and rapidly developing topic. I have seen arguments for including history in the intangibles, where the history is an important part of the brand’s value. Sports companies could be an example of that. Not sure I buy it myself, but we already live in a world where living human beings don’t own their own genes. So watch this space, IP & privacy will be the battlegrounds in this century, in the same way that civil rights were in the 20th.
I note that part of the victim mentality down Govan way is asking what happened to the footballing authorities due diligence processes that let the likes of Whyte and Green through the door.
Of course it is quickly forgotten that Mini Murray, Bain, Johnson and others all carried out due diligence on Whyte and told SDM to stay well clear yet that advice was ignored and the MBB was cheered all the way up the marble stair case on his arrival.
There are only two big collars left to be felt
One would embarrass a Queen
The other would embarrass a King
If the evidence is compelling ……………..…
The short delay to next week
May help explain why the appointment of a new Chief Constable for Scotland is being rushed through
Den, thanks for that answer. It was the one I was expecting. I was a number cruncher DRs = CRs, Suspense a/cs at zero etc. Bank a/cs same as Agresso.
But had nothing to do with strategy. How can you buy ‘History’ That was my point. It isn’t an asset on a balance sheet. And yet that idiot was allowed to get away with declaring that he had ‘bought’ Rangers history! Hook line & sinker, the SMSM bought it! If any ‘journalists’ read this site, listen to me, you are fools and we know you are. Grow a pair for goodness sake and tell the truth.
GoosyGoosy says:
Member: (437 comments)
September 2, 2015 at 10:16 pm
There are only two big collars left to be felt
One would embarrass a Queen
The other would embarrass a King
If the evidence is compelling ……………..…
The short delay to next week
May help explain why the appointment of a new Chief Constable for Scotland is being rushed through
===============================================
I could easily see King being roped in, as he has ‘previous’…
but, I just can’t see (S)DM being pulled in: he’s too smart and slippery – but would love to be proved wrong on that one !
Well after the events today I’m sure “investors” are going to be queuing round the block to be the next guy screamed at and verbally abused!
Ah, I remember the days when Craig Whyte was heralded as the man who would lavish untold wealth and he was cheered down Edmiston Drive. We all knew within a couple of weeks that he was skint and, whatever he did have, he was not gong to spend on RFC.
I also remember the days of the ‘red card’ protest, on the 18th and 72nd minutes, against the failure of a CVA and yet now we are told that that very failure is no big deal.
Then there was Charles Green who waltzed down the road, created and fed the victim myth, and who bore the very brunt of that mentality today. Along the way he floated a new company which seemed very similar, but not the same, company that had ‘an irrevocable agreement’ to buy the assets. Remember the day the CVA failed and the assets were sold it was remarked within minutes/hours that the assets had been sold to a different company than the one previously mentioned.
Now the plot thickens further.
Ownership of all assets are now questionable.
Yet some of those assets are already used as security against a £5M loan.
Meanwhile one of the parties to the five way agreement, who probably signed the document twice, may not have had the legal authority to sign for those clubs. Where does that leave the legality of that document? Oops forgot that that document was illegal to begin with. So our administrators are in for a penny in for a pound.
Meanwhile the city, who will be asked to fund the final step of ‘the journey’, will clearly be impressed by the goings on over the last two days. If they buy shares what will they own with the assets in doubt?
Worse than that the current custodians will now have to fund the on going losses themselves and yet have no guarantee that they now own the assets and yet they still owe £5M to Mike Ashley.
Some RFC/’The Rangers’ fans think this will result in the sale of assets to Green made null and void and them retuned to the Administrators to sell. Yet the Administrators are in the dock along with Whyte and Green!
If the clock is reset they then still have a failed CVA, all the shares purchased in RIFC are worthless, and they will still have to fund a whole new, new club going forward. That is before we even get to creating a new five way agreement because remember a new club has to start at the bottom again.
I do not even know if the above is feasible but some people really should be careful what they wish for.
justshatered says:
Member: (147 comments)
September 2, 2015 at 10:29 pm
As but, they’ve covered that. From the 2013 account again.
Just shattered “When the God’s wish to punish us, they give us what we want”
Who needs the Edinburgh Festival when you get this quality of entertainment for free?
I’m sure I am like many on here who have hoped for justice to be done. It may well be that we are seeing the beginning of that but there is still a long way to go.
Back in Govan, the austerity by stealth we have seen in TRFC team building and the recruitment of an apparently effective but still not fully tested manager is almost irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.
Whatever the outcome of the court cases, and that could be sometime next year, I don’t believe that RIFC/TRFC themselves now have much time. I don’t think that they will see out the season and things could happen very quickly. Trading whilst insolvent is not something that the 3Bs especially will wish to have on their records.
On known financials RIFC/TRFC are a basket case and these latest legal developments, bringing further doubt over asset ownership, almost certainly removes any possibility of a major share issue. The only option will be a much more limited rights issue aimed solely at rescuing the club, albeit most likely for just a short period.
In fact I would be surprised if such a rights issue took place as in effect it would be throwing good money after bad.
What I think is more likely to transpire is an attempted pre-pack with a quick visit to administration-land. This I think was the original aim of SDM/CW but those plans went awry.
The big factor here is MA. As I have said before he is probably the only sensible option for those who wish to see some kind of ‘Rangers’ entity survive. He holds all the aces and would come out of a Kingco insolvency event smelling of roses or whatever IP, carparks and old properties smell of…
I thus don’t think MA even needs to call in his loan.
Forced repayment of the £5M would put him in the bad books amongst fans. He gains more by letting the whole thing implode and King and PM shown up for the straw men they are. Of course King may surprise us all and produce that long lost cheque book. I don’t think I’d be advising the bears to hold their breath waiting for that though.
MA can ride to the rescue, support the pre-pack, and licence the brand to some new grouping of RRM and perhaps even fund them for a period whilst at the same time raking in merchandise income, later followed by stadium and car park rentals.
MA is also big enough to take a position on the onerous contracts that may well still remain intact after a pre-pack. With all that is going on some may even melt away…
Scottish Football now more than ever needs a strong MSM to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. And a strong Arbroath and East Fife.
Scapa
Interesting points, I don’t quite agree that IP is fascinating though.
IP is shaping up to be the cause of the next major meltdown.
Not saying it isn’t valuable and you shouldn’t protect it, on the contrary.
The Accounting profession allows, basically subjective, valuations has the seeds of disaster.
I cant see how you can buy history or transfer it from one entity to another, it is verifiable and also past.
Den its not just ip, the accounting profession is getting deserved pesters for over stating bank profits. But on IP we live in a new world, not convinced that it will be a brave or a good one, still change is going to come
Edit
Aren’t all asset valuations subjective? The only real value an asset has is what someone is prepared to pay for it?
Red Litchie
I don’t disagree with your thought process and it still seems the most likely way foward for RIFC or whatever comes out of the wash.
However the reason my last post asked about DCK and MA in relation to the recent ongoing events is that my memory tells me that after Corsica post of 20 July 2012 I am sure on of the follow up posts (no idea from whom) had one of those in the Swiss meeting saying an issue needed to be checked first with another party presumed to be MA?
If it wasn’t then I agree your thought but if not then anything could happen and we all know he only cares about the securities. Question is are they still going to be legally his if as JC intimated everything before was illegal; in which case he might cash in the chips he can and make anyone run theblegal route for badges etc.
Still think the Hampden bunker is uncomfortable as even CO in retirement may not be safe. We need new administrators, a strong Arbroath and East Fife to keep on winning.
Red Litchie
I don’t disagree with your thought process and it still seems the most likely way foward for RIFC or whatever comes out of the wash.
However the reason my last post asked about DCK and MA in relation to the recent ongoing events is that my memory tells me that after Corsica post of 20 July 2012 I am sure on of the follow up posts (no idea from whom) had one of those in the Swiss meeting saying an issue needed to be checked first with another party presumed to be MA?
If it wasn’t then I agree your thought but if not then anything could happen and we all know he only cares about the securities. Question is are they still going to be legally his if as JC intimated everything before was illegal; in which case he might cash in the chips whole he can and
wottpi says:
Member: (737 comments)
September 2, 2015 at 10:12 pm
‘… it is quickly forgotten that Mini Murray, Bain, Johnson and others all carried out due diligence on Whyte and told SDM to stay well clear yet that advice was ignored .’
____________
I wonder why.
I find myself reflecting on my own attitude to ‘helpful’ advice: if it goes against what I really have planned to do,I choose to ignore it.
Especially when playing chess: I will move my pawns exactly in the way I planned in order to reach the real end game. This might include the pretence of having been out-foxed by someone whom I had already researched as being of no intrinsic value as a chess player but only as someone prepared to cheat with me for a share in the ultimate spoils available in another competition.
And especially if the advice is coming from folk who themselves have greedy eyes on the spoils.
Of course, in my rather privileged chess circles, I KNOW that the grand masters supervising the games I play cannot see my cheating!
But, sometimes,the rank and file of the chess-loving folk make it difficult for the Masters to accommodate cheating in quite the way I would wish.
But there we are..Life’s a bitch of a queen. What’s that you say? the role of the king? Probably in check.
Phil blogging in similar terms to the above postings :
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/live-proceedings-and-dead-money/
Scottish Football needs some clear leadership from the football authorities before we get into another fankle.
I’ll be making the Final Corsica post my screensaver, as a wee reminder of the deep digging that goes on here.
I’m wondering if RIFC new auditor’s should do something similar.
Or will they just do one?
Ianagain, what happened to Corsica?
wottpi says:
Member: (737 comments)
September 2, 2015 at 10:12 pm
‘…I note that part of the victim mentality down Govan way is asking what happened to the footballing authorities due diligence processes that let the likes of Whyte and Green through the door.’
_________
It echoes the more fundamental question: why and/or how did it happen that the relatively small amounts of salary, emoluments wages declared as being paid to relatively fabulously priced footballers were not questioned?
Especially when the president of the SFA knew, from personal bloody experience, about the existence of DOS/EBTs ?
There is a question to be asked there about the ‘taking on trust’, without independent check, information provided by clubs, and about what that kind of attitude says about the administration of Scottish Football. And maybe other questions have to be asked as well.
As far as I know he retired jimbo.
Jimbo/ianagain
Corsica passed away in 2012 – cancer.
Alipratzu
Truly sorry I missed that. Memory shot. Now feel like I should be shot.
BL hell sorry.
This is a general question and has nothing to do with any recent events.
I am genuinly curious.
If a Company has an asset that may have been acquired under fraudulent means and its fraudulent gain is proven…but the asset has now been sold on and on and on and on through numerous off shore Companies? what powers would any court have in legally enforcing the return of the asset? and what powers would ..say a liquidator have in retrieving the asset or taking legal redress for financial recompense against the loss of assets for the creditors they represent? Could a liquidator apply for rightful ownership and apply any rental or lease charge to the assetuntil the asset is sold for the creditors.
To me the above scenario looks and feels horrendous as well as taking years to unravel if such a scenario existed.
Is it not a league requirement to own your stadium?
justshatered says:
Member: (147 comments)
September 2, 2015 at 10:29 pm
‘..Ah, I remember the days ..’
_________
And it feels like that, doesn’t it?
Like it was in our fathers’ days, and we were just boys, playing under the table with our train sets (!), while the adults talked serious stuff which mystified but nevertheless beguiled us.
And, indeed, speaking for myself, in matters football, I was but a 69 year-old ‘boy’ when RTC came to my attention.
What? Rangers in financial trouble? Aye, well, mildly interesting,nothing to see here: other clubs have been in some kind of financial difficulty.
Well, we know what has happened since.
And my goodness,how our ‘wee boys’ eyes have been opened.
Opened to the degree to which our Sport has been brought to the same level to which Cycling and Athletics were brought, and worse: because while the Cycling authorities and the Athletics authorities are innocent of any endorsement of cheating, our wee local football authorities have not only accepted unparalleled sporting cheating, but were part and parcel of that cheating.
Pour me another wee drap, justhatered, and we’ll reminisce some more. 🙂
It is interesting that Mr Green has been charged under Section 190 of the Companies Act 2006.
We cannot (and should not) assume that Mr Green will be found guilty of any offence; but he will no doubt be considering the consequences, if such a charge is proved.
Section 195 of the Companies Act says:
What I find particularly interesting is that arrangements are NOT voidable where “rights acquired in good faith, for value and without actual notice of the contravention by a person who is not a party to the arrangement or transaction would be affected by the avoidance.”
It comes to mind that the “Rangers” intellectual property is currently owned by Sports Direct and there is a floating charge on everything else except Ibrox. One might then think that the only part of the assets under threat under section 195 is Ibrox itself.
However, Mike Ashley might have been one of the original investors in Sevco 5088 – who later switched that investment to Sevco Scotland.
For the avoidance of doubt I am not suggesting that switching investment from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland was in any way irregular or would place such investors at risk of prosecution. Would it nevertheless make those investors (innocent) parties in terms of Section 195?
Does that then place MA’s ownership of the IP at risk and his floating charge over TRFC’s assets potentially worthless.
I genuinely don’t know; but I’m sure he will be looking at this very closely.
Paulmac2 says:
Member: (174 comments)
September 3, 2015 at 12:16 am
This is a general question and has nothing to do with any recent events
_____________________________________
As I understand it its quite simple.
Once you establish legal title you take enforcement action to recover your assets from whoever has them now, not whoever stole them from you. The person who bought them in good faith then has the job of recovering their consequential loss from whoever ripped them off back up the chain, when they sold you something they did not in fact possess.
On an unrelated note, I see you are admiring these wonderful bridges spanning this here waterway, and happen to know that they are available for purchase to the discerning buyer at a never to be repeated price should you know anyone with the requisite pecuniary facility.
I believe the legal term is “caveat emptor” or “buyer bewareand
Realistically, where there was blatant fraud and appropriate duedil, one would expect insurance and indemnity to play out if such was in place. And legit orgs would either have this, rely on those they dealt with to have it, or self insure I.e. be prepared to take the hit. I would expect any brokers who sold shares on the basis of lies to have such insurance. We shall see however. Insurance companies don’t normally mind paying out when people go to jail. It’s free advertising. It’s when the buggers get away with it that they bridle!
Just over 20 people indicating a willingness to attend the Pert Monitor (got to call it something!).
Looking for 30+ to make it worthwhile so I think we can make a decision on this by Monday morning.
Must admit I am looking forward to it. So much more we can tell you all if it’s not in print 😈
HirsutePursuit says:
Member: (103 comments)
September 3, 2015 at 12:32 am
‘Section 195 of the Companies Act says:’
_________
As it happens, HirsutePursuit,I also was having a look at legislation.
Not the Companies Act, but the ‘Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010’.
And I laughed out loud when I saw
‘material benefit” means a right or interest of any description in any property, whether heritable or moveable and whether corporeal or incorporeal. ‘
And I had Visions of this non-club-but same-club ethereal,’non-corporeal’ being, which according to our football authorities, has a physical, continuous history with a deceased entity, but with none of the financial debts and opprobrium of that entity!
Big Pink says:
Moderator:
September 3, 2015 at 1:16 am
‘…So much more we can tell you all if it’s not in print ?’
______
Aye, but can I bring Mrs C? or any other guest?
Something for the night owls, with due acknowledgement to The Bears Den, where I saw it . Giovanni di Stefano’s letter to
Duff and Phelps. Fun read .
http://eturnkeysec3340002378c9.users.site2you.com/content/sitenewsreadmore/infobox/news/template/default/active_id/953
No, Paul, you only have to have the right to use a stadium
‘Don’t mention liquidation, I did it once, but I think I got away with it.’
From The Evening Fawlty’s crime reporter:
http://m.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/13637231.Ex_Rangers_chiefs__Craig_Whyte_and_Charles_Green_charged_after_court_appearances/?ref=mr&lp=1
If the police had walked into Ibrox and charged Charles Green with the same charges in late 2012 as they have now what would be different? He is of course innocent of any wrongdoing until proven otherwise. However, the entity that currently plays out of Ibrox now is that which he created in 2012. It is the entity he negotiated with as part of the five way agreement and it is the entity the SFA awarded a licence to. So time itself is the only difference between Green being charged now or charged then. There is no comfort in the tiresome ‘ah…but that was the oldco’ line either. Many observers have already pointed out the potential consequences for the current Rangers, including the here and now of being able to raise money to allow them to continue as a going concern.
I simply don’t get the joy among many fans and media over these happenings. In the same way I didn’t get the joy over Green, and indeed Whyte before him, with anyone questioning them branded a ‘Rangers hater’ by the same people.
Many people will be worried about these current happenings. Rangers fans should certainly be among them. What happens or does not happen to their club this time will not be determined by friendly faces behind the closed doors of Hampden. If it was my club, I’d be really worried.
Big Pink says:
Moderator:
September 3, 2015 at 1:16 am
Just over 20 people indicating a willingness to attend the Pert Monitor (got to call it something!).
Looking for 30+ to make it worthwhile so I think we can make a decision on this by Monday morning.
Must admit I am looking forward to it. So much more we can tell you all if it’s not in print ?
———————————————–
BP, I have a ‘lurker’ friend that wants to attend too.
ps, I ticked ‘No food’ by mistake on the form 🙄 Hope you get the numbers.
Cat and pigeons time…
In the circumstances, and without any prejudgement of the outcome of any court cases, would it be prudent and usual, if that word could ever be applied to this saga, for BDO to lodge a letter before claim or some other document with RIFC/TRFC?
Surely they have a duty on behalf of creditors to maximise their return and clearly there is some value in the assets eventually transferred to Sevco Scotland.
The court charges put in the public domain the possibility of there being an “issue” over this transfer and BDO will doubtless have also been cooperating with the police – in fact they may hold documents that come to be used in evidence.
Anyone have knowledge of how an administrator would act in these circumstances? Could such action have already been taken? Will we have to wait for an entry in the next annual accounts or an insolvency event, whichever comes soonest?
Aren’t RIFC lucky they aren’t bound by those pesky Stock Exchange rules that would demand some kind of statement on the current situation?
Maybe their Nomad will be pushing for this anyway….oh, they seem to have misplaced that organisation.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
redlichtie says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 8:26 am
I am confident Malcolm Cohen and his colleague are aware of what actions they can take in the best interests of the creditors, and that they will have no hesitation in taking those actions.
I also have no doubt they will carry out a thorough investigation into any suspected fraudulent activity and report their findings to the relevant authorities. They may already have done so.
I am quite sure HMRC knew what they were doing in appointing the liquidator.
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/105871-in-full-hmrc-statement-on-rangers-cva-rejection/
“A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years.”
http://www.bdo.co.uk/contacts-and-locations/malcolm-cohen
“Malcolm leads the firms’ National Contentious Insolvency Team, this team is dedicated to recovering assets through litigation, cross border investigations and uncovering fraud. He also leads the firms’ Corporate Streamlining Team.”
Litigation, cross border investigations and uncovering fraud. That has a familiar ring to it.
redlichtie says:
Member:
September 2, 2015 at 11:08 pm
Phil blogging in similar terms to the above postings :
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/live-proceedings-and-dead-money/
Scottish Football needs some clear leadership from the football authorities before we get into another fankle.
================================
No need to concern youself, Red Lichtie, the situation is under control, according to Speirs on Twitter-
The resurrection men are on standby, and they have another cunning plan! What could possibly go wrong?
Now, let’s imagine you’re a top notch lawyer, bit of a Perry Mason, working for a top notch law firm and you’ve carried out an in depth and exhaustive forensic investigation into individuals and a business affair they’re involved in.
Your investigation declares all parties to be whiter than white and that there’s nothing to see there, so everyone should move on.
Albeit before moving on you trouser £500k for all those sheets of A4 which make up your report.
Turning on your TV yesterday and seeing the executive actions being carried out by officers from Police Scotland do you, as the said top notch lawyer, consider yourself to be
a) embarrassed?
or
b) a tad worried?
or
c) a bit of both?
Interesting times indeed.
I see some musings as to whether he who would be will be dragged into the court proceedings in respect of the acquisition of assets from RFC post-CVA in 2012. Notwithstanding Corsica’s observations on South African meetings, I wonder about this. Golfer Johnston was clear on his concerns in 2011, his golfing friend King was around until 2012. King is familiar with the margins of legitimate/illegal financial dealings – maybe he called in the police? Who said there was honour among thieves?
Serious Organised Crime….
I guess we’ll find it in due course when the cases are eventually heard. So no comment about guilt or innocence.
What though is worth considering is why Rangers attract the type of owners they have in recent times, and why the lunatic fringe amongst the fanbase have been so quick to endorse these individuals and then even quicker to forget that endorsement when it all goes horribly wrong.
Wide eyed loonballs like Craig Houston and homophobic bigots like Chris Graham are a major part of the problem. They however are so addicted to their 15 minutes in the spotlight they fail to think about the damage they do to their club. They see themselves as some kind of saviour , as opposed to to the reality that they are a barrier to decent, credible ownership
Would any credible individual , with a stellar reputation in business , want to expose themselves to a frothing at the mouth nutcase . Would any businessman who is used to conducting his business in a professional manner want someone with the behavioral characteristics of Houston or Graham rabblerousing to maintain their highly dubious influence .
When Houston screams at Green and Whyte ” Do you know who am ur ” he exposes his priority. His partnership with a violent criminal drug dealer as co – founder of Sons of Struth exposes his judgement.
No wonder the Scottish based business community of credibility and substance want nothing to do with Rangers. When your cheerleaders are Houston, Chugg and Graham is it any surprise that a man who was charged with money laundering and racketeering is their choice as the best way forward. It is only someone with King’s own background who would give houseroom to the likes of Houston & Co.
Think about the succession at Rangers. Starting with David Murray. A huge corporate failure , a man who instigated tax evasion schemes, who shafted his own employees pension fund to the tune of £22 Million, who engaged in industrial scale deception and cheating of the National Association.
He is followed by 2 individuals now facing multiple charges of serious organised crime and one who has faced charges of racketeering and money laundering and has been found guilty of 41 charges of criminal tax evasion.
You reap what you sow and the likes of Houston, Chugg and Graham are part of the reason why these types of owners are welcomed with open arms . Who with any type of moral compass would welcome King as Chairman ?
The first part of Rangers trying to rehabilitate themselves should be to rid themselves of individuals like Houston & co , rather than provide them with seats in the Directors box..”””
Barca,
Firstly ouch! Right up there with your most cutting contributions!
Secondly, what ‘decent’ businessman would welcome such loon’s attachment to their recent major investment? Could I suggest one whom is distant to the famous gold fish bowl, emotionally unaffected by it’s performance but a significant beneficiary in the scenario that the loon led massed pack buy lots of them tops, tat and other memorabilia. Chips on shoulders and victim mentalities, sufficient to block out poor performance (relative to what they consider their rightful place), would indeed be a welcome addition to the mix.
I note that while every man is innocent until proven guilty and there is a long way to go in this saga there are a good few Bears espousing a ‘Hang Em High’ attitude.
If at the end of the day if wrong doing is uncovered then there is a good chance a bit of Porridge will be served along with disqualifications from being directors and from professional bodies etc. While even that may not be enough for some Bears they should be thankful we don’t have a system like other parts of the globe where paying a ‘pennies in the pound’ deal avoids a jail term and allows you to carry on regardless.
🙂
Barcabhoy says:
September 3, 2015 at 9:41 am
Would any credible individual , with a stellar reputation in business , want to expose themselves to a frothing at the mouth nutcase .
————————————————————————–
Eh sorry to be pedantic but have we all forgotten that Mike Ashley (who IMHO meets the above criteria) was at one point keen to up his share ownership to 30% and had his place men on the board?
Agree with what you are getting at Barca but sometimes if a buck is to be made such matters can be overlooked to keep bringing in the cash if the price is right.
In fact the stance taken by Sons of Struth re SD and the RRLtd deal place them in direct opposition to Ashley. In terms of social media and public protests they are right in his face.
He doesn’t seem to be walking away, most likely as he sees them no more than a plook on the backside of his money making empire.
In fact when I think about it the Houstons/ Grahams of this world, as keen to switch sides as straw in the wind, are the very reason the RRL deal is structured like it is with the reported buyback clause. No fool he.
neepheid says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 8:56 am
redlichtie says:
Member:
September 2, 2015 at 11:08 pm
Graham Spiers @GrahamSpiers 22 Oct 2012
For those in doubt: the SFA have legal contingencies in place if any substantial Charles Green/Craig Whyte link emerges at Rangers.
The resurrection men are on standby, and they have another cunning plan! What could possibly go wrong?
___________________________________________________________________________
One thing that might be making the rear ends squeak at higher pitch within the SFA/SPFL is the fact that Whyte, Green and the rest of those collared will know exactly where every piece from every skeleton is hidden.
I might be wrong, but I imagine self-preservation ranks much higher up the priorities of guys such as Green than any loyalty to their alleged co-conspirators and anyone who provided assistance to their dealings (whether they were willing or not)
Ashley isn’t part of the Scottish business community and as such isn’t covered by the points i made in my previous post.
The reality here is that Houston, Graham and Chugg, now that they have become public figures, clearly believe that their approval is required for any potential owner.
There have been various Non UK bidders who were credible , who were chased because of concerted campaigns by fan bodies. It has been perfectly clear for some time that the only owner deemed fit and proper by the likes of Houston & Graham has been King. They seem very happy to play fast and loose with business behaviour when it suits them.
I see that Gordon Tait at the DR has put the following into print on page 5 of today’s edition (read for free at the Dentist!) “the club was then liquidated”. That’ll be him on the ‘Rangers haters’ list then!
😕 I’m interested in attending any gathering such as that proposed for Muirton on Thursday, 22nd October. This is the same date, however, as the Europa League match, Molde v Celtic according to fixture list on Celtic’s website.
I think this is a rather good account of what has gone before and a useful reminder of the part played by the various bodies.
http://mattleslie74.weebly.com/blog/no-crime-in-the-soviet-union-comrade
Barcabhoy says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 9:41 am
Agree with all of this. However, I would add that the root cause is the week Regulatory and Tax Law frameworks in the UK. The City of London, is probably the most corrupt square mile in the world.
Until that culture is changed, UK PLC will be remain open for business with every bottom feeding business person on the planet.
One for the lunchtime cuppa deep thinkers!
In what is a massive oversimplification I know (but probably best for legal reasons), if the liquidation asset sale is unwound returning the assets to BDO presumably to resell, would the Withey insurance payout remain?
The two (2011 club purchase and 2012 asset purchase) still strike me as distinct transactions and so the consequences of the former (the Withey insurance payout) would remain intact?
Makes for quite a pile. Or would the insurers have grounds for redress?
Blimey, Wales (9th) are now above England (10th) in the FIFA rankings. Congratulations to them. That’s above Spain and the Netherlands too. Scotland are up to a mighty 31st position!
Aren’t rankings, coefficients whatever you want to call them an utterly pointless undertaking!
That’s Paul Clark back in court on new charges as well
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13643964.Rangers__former_administrator_Paul_Clark_faces_charges_over_2012_purchase_of_Rangers/
While on the subject of weak regulatory frameworks in the UK. A wee reminder of the Insolvency Practitioners Association’s role as a Chocolate Fire-guard
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22637969
Top Cat 1874 says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 12:06 pm
I see that Gordon Tait at the DR has put the following into print on page 5 of today’s edition (read for free at the Dentist!) “the club was then liquidated”. That’ll be him on the ‘Rangers haters’ list then!
==============================================================
Is that online too? Not wishing to give any money to the DR by visiting their website….
If so, it will be interesting to see if it is subsequently revised into Sevco-speak.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
chtie says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 2:07 pm
Top Cat 1874 says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 12:06 pm
I see that Gordon Tait at the DR has put the following into print on page 5 of today’s edition (read for free at the Dentist!) “the club was then liquidated”. That’ll be him on the ‘Rangers haters’ list then!
==============================================================
Is that online too? Not wishing to give any money to the DR by visiting their website….
If so, it will be interesting to see if it is subsequently revised into Sevco-speak.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
____________
Read it on twitter which isn’t allyjambo-friendly so can’t do a link 🙄 though the article’s actually from the Sun.
A paragraph states “The club was then liquidated and Green led the consortium which bought Rangers’ assets.”
They got today’s date right, too 😀
Scapaflow
The Accounting profession has been found wanting in quite few areas. These days they seem to do less checking and more box ticking and getting signatures to cover themselves against lawsuits.
In general you are right about valuation, I will spare the readers and only makes couple of observations.
Cost to the business is a good and verifiable basis for valuation on the balance sheet.
What someone will pay in an arms length transaction in an open market could be used If it can be verified.
• Barcabhoy says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 9:41 am
Serious Organised Crime….
I guess we’ll find it in due course when the cases are eventually heard. So no comment about guilt or innocence.
What though is worth considering is why Rangers attract the type of owners they have in recent times, and why the lunatic fringe amongst the fanbase have been so quick to endorse these individuals and then even quicker to forget that endorsement when it all goes horribly wrong.
Wide eyed loonballs like Craig Houston and homophobic bigots like Chris Graham are a major part of the problem. They however are so addicted to their 15 minutes in the spotlight they fail to think about the damage they do to their club. They see themselves as some kind of saviour , as opposed to to the reality that they are a barrier to decent, credible ownership
Would any credible individual , with a stellar reputation in business , want to expose themselves to a frothing at the mouth nutcase . Would any businessman who is used to conducting his business in a professional manner want someone with the behavioral characteristics of Houston or Graham rabblerousing to maintain their highly dubious influence .
When Houston screams at Green and Whyte ” Do you know who am ur ” he exposes his priority. His partnership with a violent criminal drug dealer as co – founder of Sons of Struth exposes his judgement.
No wonder the Scottish based business community of credibility and substance want nothing to do with Rangers. When your cheerleaders are Houston, Chugg and Graham is it any surprise that a man who was charged with money laundering and racketeering is their choice as the best way forward. It is only someone with King’s own background who would give houseroom to the likes of Houston & Co.
Think about the succession at Rangers. Starting with David Murray. A huge corporate failure , a man who instigated tax evasion schemes, who shafted his own employees pension fund to the tune of £22 Million, who engaged in industrial scale deception and cheating of the National Association.
He is followed by 2 individuals now facing multiple charges of serious organised crime and one who has faced charges of racketeering and money laundering and has been found guilty of 41 charges of criminal tax evasion.
You reap what you sow and the likes of Houston, Chugg and Graham are part of the reason why these types of owners are welcomed with open arms . Who with any type of moral compass would welcome King as Chairman ?
The first part of Rangers trying to rehabilitate themselves should be to rid themselves of individuals like Houston & co , rather than provide them with seats in the Directors box..”””
_________________________________________________________________
Not posted in a long time due to many other time consuming life issues…however Barcabhoy you prompted me to quote your post in full as it is a truism that needs to be shouted from the rooftops. I really believe that what has now been created is far, far worse than whatever went before….. the SFA and SPFL and all the clubs really need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask if this has all really been worth the candle……but if you think what we have now is so much worse than before, just wait to you see what we could be left with after this current shit storm finally blows over…….
blu says:
Member:
September 3, 2015 at 9:19 am
I see some musings as to whether he who would be will be dragged into the court proceedings in respect of the acquisition of assets from RFC post-CVA in 2012. Notwithstanding Corsica’s observations on South African meetings, I wonder about this. Golfer Johnston was clear on his concerns in 2011, his golfing friend King was around until 2012. King is familiar with the margins of legitimate/illegal financial dealings – maybe he called in the police? Who said there was honour among thieves?
*************
Corsica alluded several times that a number of parties involved had been under investigation for some time (I think RTC did too) although that was coming from London not Scotland. Given the charges and the “track record” of those concerned, I wonder if the characters may have been under suspicion for some time but this was their “Al Capone” mistake which allowed plod to finally take action.
K*** has as much to lose as anyone else in the unfolding drama so I very much doubt that he would have called in plod and Corsica was convinced that K*** was part of it anyway.
Isn’t it interesting that one character (apart from K***) was there at the very beginning and at the very end but is nowhere to be seen now? Must be having a h-ellis-h time, eh?
(mods feel free to remove if this breaks rules)
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?
Albert Camus
“After many years during which I saw many things, what I know most surely about morality and the duty of man I owe to sport and learned it in the RUA.”
I see Bayern are putting Camus’ philosophy into practice. I will not be holding my breath while waiting for the SPFL clubs to follow their example.
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-09-03/german-football-giants-bayern-munich-announce-refugee-integration-plans/