A recent autumn storm caused the destruction of the metal goal fame in our garden. The small goal with the weather-beaten net had fallen into disuse. But I liked it seeing it there on the grass. I suppose I half-expected, half-hoped, it would be used again. Once, it was a father and son thing and had been constructed carefully from a nice set of plans. At the time, it impressed both son and daughter no end. But that was then, this was now.
One of our trees, blown over by the recent high winds, caused the goal frame’s final demise. As I unscrewed the twisted metal I thought of the hours of innocent fun it had given us. It had been the scene of many goals and not a few great saves. My son, who is soon off to uni, smiled thoughtfully as I mentioned that this was the end of the ‘goalposts of childhood’. Perhaps he knew what I meant.
My own childhood goalposts had been ‘doon the back’. Drawn with chalk on the red brick of the ‘sausage wall’ at one end, and on part of the ‘wash hoose’ at the other. Many a league, Cup and international match was played out between those goals on the Dennistoun dirt. We once put on a parallel version of a historic England v Scotland match while the real match was being played at Wembley. Jim Mone sitting on one of the dykes had a transister radio to his ear. As we played our match he chalked up live score updates on the wall — our Twitter and FaceBook anno 1967. What a day.
We did use a pile of jackets up on the old Dennistoun cricket pitch, but only rarely. Mostly, we played on the red gravel surface at the Finlay Drive entrance. That pitch was fitted with real goalposts — like the ones they had at Hampden. Or so we imagined.
These sentimental memories of receding years accompanied my removal of the ruined metal goal frame. But, as you can imagine, it seemed an almost symbolic act. For fans of Scottish football the ‘goalposts’ that once defined the game of our football childhoods — have not only been moved, they’ve been been twisted and mis-shapen out of all recognition.
The past decades have seen a fundamental change in the way our game is run and governed, at home and abroad. Money is now king and sporting consideration is a luxury we sometimes have to put to one side — or at least, so we’re told.
At the risk of stating the obvious, sport, if it is to mean anything at all, has to be based on clearly defined rules and principles. These rules must be applied equally to all the participants, they are certainly not optional extras. However, to misquote and paraphrase George Orwell, ‘all teams are equal, but some teams are more equal than others’ — at least, when it comes to Scottish football.
The efforts by the SFA to re-interpret rules to fit the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the demise of Rangers FC in 2012 have left most of us scratching our heads. Much of the Scottish media has backed up the SFA’s efforts, something which has added to the general confusion and chaos. In fact, it’s become clear that the death of Rangers, as we knew them, has been such a traumatic event that it must be denied. The authorities and media seem to have been so besotted with one club that its loss is out of the question. And so, it’s been gifted a bizarre kind of immunity from liquidation and death that implies its on-going existence, long after it drew it’s final breath.
This situation has opened the door to a legion of businessmen on the make. They have been allowed to perpetuate the myth, with SFA blessing, that they ‘saved’ Rangers. And their unwavering message is, that they can only succeed if fans keep giving them their hard-earned cash. To those outside the blue bubble it looks like a huge con trick. If the only source of real money in football is the fans, then the Ibrox faithful have been royally fleeced.
How different it could have been if the former club had been allowed a dignified end. A year out of the game would probably have allowed fans to restart a newco of their own. They could have applied for entry into the professional leagues along with the other clubs waiting in line. Chances are they would have been given special dispensation, and walked straight into the bottom tier. Of course, they would have claimed to be the continuation of the spirit of the previous entity — but would anyone have argued against that? How different it could have been if the rules governing the game had been respected. The SFA may even have kept their dignity intact and the press not felt obliged to print half-truths, falsehoods and lies.
You’ve got to wonder why Dunfermline and Hearts fought so desperately to avoid liquidation. After all, the Scottish football authorities now seem intent on convincing us that liquidation has little or no effect on a football club. Even past sins, such as wrongly-registered players are as naught — if, at the time, they were thought to have been registered correctly. By this logic, we have to ask: if a ‘company’ running a ‘club’ bribes a referee, will retrospective action will be taken against the ‘club’. The players and the club, after all, will have done nothing wrong. And since the referee was not known to have been bribed, and not struck off, he was qualified to referee the match in question, at the time. Using the SFA thought process, the result would probably be allowed to stand. Personally, I’m not sure I follow SFA logic. They’ve ‘moved the goalposts’, and (you saw it coming) bent them into an unrecognisable shape.
Which brings me back to our garden. The old metal goal frame is waiting to be driven down to the local re-cycling centre. The twisted metal and worn-out net are useless. Ruined by forces beyond our control. There is no interest in a replacement at present. Perhaps, if we have grandchildren, they will show an interest in football. If they do, I’ll build a new set of goalposts. They’ll be straight and true, the way the goalposts of childhood should be. The way goalposts should always be.
Sorry TSFM been distracted. How do I give to Pauls charity?
If 5088 is back so is Craigie. Whoopee any tapes left ?
Reason why I;m here
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19780330&id=rRc-AAAAIBAJ&sjid=KUoMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4464,6772001
The reason why the rest of you are here:
Re Motherwell mgr
One of his first games was a Scottish Cup defeat to Queen’s Park. He also had to contend with a controversial fixture against Rangers when the visiting fans invaded the pitch with Motherwell 2-0 o. After the players returned, Rangers stormed back and won 5-2. Despite a protest to the league and the SFA, the result was allowed to stand and the Gers went on to win the title.
Nuff said, No Celtic No Aberdeen diddys done over. Willie Waddell said it would be an injustice if it was replayed
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19780419&id=QcpAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=waUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4219,4263453
I was there/ Rangers fans were all on the track by the pitch throughout the restart referee carried on as instructed by the polis. Total disgrace/ My brother never ever went back to watch a senior football game again
Yes it was a long time ago. I don’t forget or forgive.
PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (254)
January 7, 2014 at 10:14 pm
=================================
HMRC let D&P do the admin because they were never going to allow a CVA, HMRC planned from the outset to force liquidation then to have BDO on the case (using the criminal courts if necessary, which BDO WILL use) so that they can recover every penny it can for the taxpayer, the gloves are off in this.
HMRC have been pissed about for years by football clubs cocking a snoot at the tax laws, this ones for keeps. Craig White has previous with HMRC so this is also a wee bit personal, taxmen don’t like their photos published either Jack.
If I had been the recipient of tax free cash/ non repayable loans/side letters, I’d be getting my accountant to put some cash aside for the rain that’s coming, oh, and getting a lawyer upgrade.
What do jack’s clients have in common?
http://www.blog.rippedoffbritons.com/2012/06/tax-havens-boost-their-lobbying-efforts.html?utm_content=bufferb2fa6&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer
Tif Finn says: (1191)
January 7, 2014 at 10:22 pm
If that was a likely play then could the move of assets from TRFC to RIFC be kept…err…off the radar?
ianagain says: (75)
January 7, 2014 at 11:22 pm
‘….Yes it was a long time ago. I don’t forget or forgive…’
———
Do you have access to what the editorial comment was on the issue?
I heard Speirs last night observing that journalists were always in thrall to the big clubs, and were no more critical than today’s MSM , for fear of being denied titbits of info.
It would be interesting to see what that particular newspaper in your first link had to say at the time.
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
January 8, 2014 at 12:26 am
If that was a likely play then could the move of assets from TRFC to RIFC be kept…err…off the radar?
———-
The decision to move the assets will be taken behind closed doors, if necessary with a consultation with the majority shareholders, but certainly without a shareholder vote being required. I believe the spivs now control the majority shares. Then, provided the forms are duly signed and dated and lodged with a conveyancing solicitor at least one day before an application for a CVA is made, then it can be quite a few days later before this information appears on the Scottish Land Register. Solicitors are very busy people don’t you know.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9105759/
Wouldn’t it be interesting if Octopus chased the current rangers for loss of profit on the £17m they loaned their previous owner, circa £11m. It is the same rangers after all (apparently).
For the Share watchers out there, price down again to 31.5p
Share Price: 31.50 Bid: 30.00 Ask: 33.00 Change: -0.50 (-1.56%)
Giovanni says: (16)
January 8, 2014 at 8:40 am
I agree entirely with what you say. The current Board, who have the support of a clear majority of RIFC shareholders, can transfer the properties out of TRFC whenever they feel like it. No publicity required.
Just a question, though, from someone who spent his working life in England. Under English law, it is entirely possible, and quite common, for companies in a similar situation to transfer the beneficial interest in properties from one group company to another, without doing the paperwork to transfer legal title via the Land Registry until the property is ultimately sold out of the group. If the legal position is the same in Scotland, then the registered owner of Ibrox, etc on the public record may not be the true, or beneficial owner. In other words Ibrox and Murray Park may have been transferred into RIFC months ago, with nothing appearing to change at the Land Registry.
Can someone with Scottish legal knowledge comment on whether that is a possibility? I do know that stamp duty is not an issue where a transfer is between group companies.
MSM mischief making or is it not just ‘cutting’ but also ‘touching’ the cloth time for some?
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/dean-shiels-seeks-mccoist-talks-on-rangers-future-1-3260290
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/rumour-mill-van-dijk-bid-rangers-celtic-1-3260419
Rangers budget talks could see biggest earners leave
Rangers’ biggest earners could be shown the exit door in the aftermath of budget talks between manager Ally McCoist and chief executive Graham Wallace. The two are currently engaged in discussions to map out Rangers’ finances, which are widely expected to be cut following strong indications from Wallace that the club needs to cut its cloth.
Lee Wallace and David Templeton are named by The Sun as two players who are most likely to be asked to leave should Rangers need to reduce their costs. Wallace has been one of Rangers’ most widely acclaimed performers, and has attracted interest from Nottingham Forest. Templeton, who has been told he is part of McCoist’s long-term plans despite a lack of recent first-team action, may also be shown the door because of his high wages. (The Sun)
OT……heard on the radio this morning that St Mirren player Paul McGowan has been found guilty of assault. I wonder if his manager will use the first available opportunity to deliver a dewy eyed tribute to the player, the way he did for Jim Goodwin after he was found guilty of assaulting an opponent? (Honestly only 1!) Not sure if this issue was discussed on here, but IMO when Gavin Gunning is punished with a 3 match ban for a petulant flick of the boot that fails to make contact, or Neil Lennon punished with a 4 match ban for calling Goodwin (oh the irony) a f*nny…yet a forearm smash that catches an opponent clean in the face merits a mere 2 match ban, something is badly wrong. It was bad enough that Danny Lennon felt the need to praise Goodwin’s ‘performance’ at the time, but to proudly boast as he did on Saturday that ‘when he crosses the white line he takes my instructions to the letter’ (as close a quotation as I can remember) was something of a disgrace.
Scottish football will lag behind its competitors until this McMacho approach is outlawed and appropriately punished, too many John Brown’s and Danny Lennon’s holding us back.
Giovanni says: (16)
January 7, 2014 at 4:05 pm
wottpi says:
January 7, 2014 at 3:14 pm
Do those who are REALLY in charge give a flying feck about whether or not a football club is successful being that there is no obvious profit or return to be made in the medium term? Will they cut and run as soon as they have bled the beast dry?
————-
Got it in one. There is no long term return in supporting a football team. Watch for Brian Stockbridge leaving, that’s the sign that the spivs, who are in control, are about to pull the plug.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Have to agree with that.
Hows this for a scenario?
CEO Wallace will keep him long enough to understand what exactly is ‘under the bonnet’ and then either try and get rid of him or, when close to getting rumbled, Stockbridge will have an ‘my little Asian friend’ moment, which when added to the MM mobile footage (stage 1 of escape plan already set up) will let him move to yet another little Chateau in France, possibly with an some form of unfair dismissal /forced out type claim banded about for good measure.
Either way enter stage left Laxey wanting the shareholders of the Plc to be protected from the loss making subsidiary.
Good morning and a belated Happy New Year to everyone.
It is possible to conclude a set of Missives which are legally binding to facilitate the transfer of the properties with registration taking place after the date of entry.
I would not be surprised if this had already been done .
Given however that Mr. Whyte is no fool he may well have done something which may prevent this. If he claims he owns Sevco 5088 and they claim to be the rightful owners of what the spivs have raised fiinance on by way of IPO then I would not be surprised if there are some surprises waiting in the wings.
If I were in Whyte position I would have taken out an interdict to prevent any transfer until any Court case had been determined.
Just my opinion but I firmly believe that Whyte and his company really do own the rights to Ibrox and MP and that the spivs have raised all this money on the back of a fraud. If so heads will roll.
This is probably the main reason no financial instituiton will extend a line of credit.
Either way there is a lot of mileage left in this one and I don’t think it will end well for the spivs.
wottpi says: (1381)
January 8, 2014 at 9:31 am
MSM mischief making or is it not just ‘cutting’ but also ‘touching’ the cloth time for some?
=================================================================================
wottpi – Those shrewd chaps at Ibrox have craftily engineered a situation where their old chosen one (the only genuine link back to oldco) and their new chosen one (who will lead them to financial sustainability) are set to but heads in public with one of them losing face very soon.
Since the old chosen one can sell STs and the new one can’t, I’m beginning to think that the new chosen one is looking very dispensable – and maybe – just maybe – he has already perfumed his main purpose of getting the spivs through the AGM. BTW – where’s that credible new chairman these days – remind me – what’s his name again?
neepheid says: (979)
January 8, 2014 at 9:09 am
Giovanni says: (16)
January 8, 2014 at 8:40 am
I agree entirely with what you say. The current Board, who have the support of a clear majority of RIFC shareholders, can transfer the properties out of TRFC whenever they feel like it. No publicity required.
Just a question, though, from someone who spent his working life in England. Under English law, it is entirely possible, and quite common, for companies in a similar situation to transfer the beneficial interest in properties from one group company to another, without doing the paperwork to transfer legal title via the Land Registry until the property is ultimately sold out of the group. If the legal position is the same in Scotland, then the registered owner of Ibrox, etc on the public record may not be the true, or beneficial owner. In other words Ibrox and Murray Park may have been transferred into RIFC months ago, with nothing appearing to change at the Land Registry.
Can someone with Scottish legal knowledge comment on whether that is a possibility? I do know that stamp duty is not an issue where a transfer is between group companies.
=========================================================
I remember posts on this in the past and my recollection is that what you suggest can happen. However if there is a charge on the property from a third party they will have it registered for obvious reasons to protect their financial interest.
That then takes me to the SportsDirect money which has already been injected into Rangers and the Rangers AIM prospectus explaining the joint-venture clearly states that: ‘Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited (an affiliate
of SDI) agrees to provide a facility of £1.5 million to Rangers Retail available for drawdown for a period of 5 years at an interest rate of Barclays Bank’s pass through rate from time-to-mtime and interest is to be capitalised. Any sums drawn down under the facility would be secured by a debenture to be given by Rangers Retail over all its freehold and leasehold property. The loan facility and debenture have not yet been entered into.’
Well we know from Rangers accounts that some of the loan to Rangers has been drawn-down but I haven’t seen anyone show that any debenture has been lodged against TRFCL freehold and leasehold property and I would think that the Ashley operation wouldn’t make mistakes like that.
From a law site: ‘In order to be enforceable, security under a debenture needs to be perfected. This involves registering the debenture document at Companies House, and may also involve obtaining prior consent by giving notice of the security interests to third parties and the registration of the security interest in other public registers such as the Land Registry.
Apparently the law relating to charges changed in April 2013 and it is no longer a criminal offence to fail to register a charge. A good explanation of legal changes at: http://wilkes.co.uk/key-changes-to-the-registration-of-debenture-and-charges-come-into-force/
wottpi says: (1381)
January 8, 2014 at 9:31 am
2 0 Rate This
MSM mischief making or is it not just ‘cutting’ but also ‘touching’ the cloth time for some?
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/dean-shiels-seeks-mccoist-talks-on-rangers-future-1-3260290
=======================
Perhaps the inclusion of a bonus or payment to another club based on appearances in his contract may have something to do with him not playing?
wottpi says: (1381)
January 8, 2014 at 9:54 am
CEO Wallace will keep him long enough to understand what exactly is ‘under the bonnet’ and then either try and get rid of him or, when close to getting rumbled, Stockbridge will have an ‘my little Asian friend’ moment, which when added to the MM mobile footage (stage 1 of escape plan already set up) will let him move to yet another little Chateau in France, possibly with an some form of unfair dismissal /forced out type claim banded about for good measure.
Either way enter stage left Laxey wanting the shareholders of the Plc to be protected from the loss making subsidiary.
========================================================================
I think Laxeys could well be the ones who exercise their traditional coup de grace when Rangers is on its knees.
And I also believe that Stockbridge leaving will be the signal that the Spiv lifeboats have pulled away from the stricken ship. But Wallace has no say when Stockbridge goes – indeed Wallace has no say in anything that the Spivs instruct him to do.
He is there as part of the deflection shield to allow the Spivs a bit more time to strip the club and make the necessary arrangements to be able to walk-away without any legal action being taken against them. Clever Spivs don’t actually need to break the law to earn their millions and the ones who are methodically and ruthlessy stripping value out of Rangers are very very clever Spivs who have shown adaptability and dexterity in changing their game plan to meet changing circumstances and by and large keep the Bears happily injecting cash into their coffers..
Clever Rangers Men knew from Day 1 where this was all going to go and had no intention of being left holding – not the baby – but all the sh*tty nappies and excrement produced in the Journey to Penury.
Idiots like Murray of video infamy; Walter and Ally and others will be seen as responsible for letting the Spivs get away with it and given the gushing endorsements they echoed and their failure to actually blow the whistle when it would have mattered they deserve everything flung at them from ordinary Bears.
Whether, after the final collapse, that Real Rangers Men return and actually inject any cash is a really interesting question. Up until recently I always felt that would be the scenario but now I begin to wonder whether that will take place.
It’s beginning to seem more likely to me that Rangers will pass through a series of lesser spivs, barraboys and possibly ‘Glasgow Businessmen’ on their seemingly inevitable downward journey.
Para Handy says: (32)
January 8, 2014 at 10:41 am
wottpi says: (1381)
January 8, 2014 at 9:31 am
MSM mischief making or is it not just ‘cutting’ but also ‘touching’ the cloth time for some?
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/dean-shiels-seeks-mccoist-talks-on-rangers-future-1-3260290
=======================
Perhaps the inclusion of a bonus or payment to another club based on appearances in his contract may have something to do with him not playing?
=================================================
I think that’s a possibility but I think the main reason is that his agent is flying a Big Red Flag to make clear that Deans is going nowhere unless he gets a full pay-off on his contract.
the rumbles that he had been told he could go always sounded quite kosher to me as that is one of the first thing any company does in this situation. The weaker members of ‘the herd’ are singled out and pressured and even the herd starts to avoid them. Have been there personally and it’s quite an experience and you really see the wheat being separated from the chaff in terms of courage and integrity.
But his agent has been quite clever in denying it happened and actually quoted Ally as confirming there is no pressure being exerted. So what does Management Mouthpiece McCoist say 🙄
Laughing Boy is on a hiding to nothing on this one – who else would the Rangers management use to pressurise players out the door. No guesses required – there is only the Chosen One who will cling on to the bitter end. He most certainly will never walk away – he’ll need Pickfords to carry him out along with his personal warchest of dosh.
Long time lurker, just saw this this morning, any ideas on this from anyone who understands this stuff better than I do?
http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/305-exclusive-european-commission-seek-explanation-on-celtic-land-deals?
😆 Notts Forest…..forgot about one, I hope the Forrest board are watching that closely. Third tier Scottish left back, let’s put a value on that, I do rate him a decent player, but much more than the £300k you’d get from an SPFL club is poor business. And I doubt many more clubs would be interested IMH but slightly tinted opinion. Am I far off?
Mick67
Its a mud slinging exercise started by the folk behind the article who have put their flawed case to the EC who then have to investigate.
Ecobhoy did an excellent post earlier explaining the facts involved and that too much weight had been put on the land valuation and even more on the fact that one of the GCC parties was called Divers, a suspiciously Tim name.
Peepul in glass houses stuff.
On the back of what M.C.F.C quoted about Wallace being expendable. Is it possible he has been brought in after several “in house” execs etc to put the club in to admin because he is independent of the shareholders.
It came to me a couple of days ago as there have been the ones who came before stating the club is in good health etc etc. Now Wallace is there and has no or few connections ( I can’t remember) so he can be seen as doing what needs to be done.
I’m happy to be corrected
Ecobhoy 11.14
Indeed but lets not forget the gentlemen at the SFA who agreed to let the Spivs on board.
So much for club licensing and duty of care to Scottish football.
Apparently glasgow’s TOA black cabs have recently been told to accept no fares on account from TRFC , it is to be cash only from now on.
Not long now…
Thanks Auldheid, I missed that
I realise that the issue of “phoenixism” has been discussed at some length previously before.
Insolvency law does not really deal with the concept of phoenix companies directly. It does so only by virtue of section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986. What that section deals with is the use of “prohibited names” and the important point to note is that the prohibitions and penalties are not directed at the companies that use certain names but rather at the directors and promoters of those companies.
Anyone who was a director of a company in the 12 months prior to its insolvency generally may not, for a period of 5 years, be involved in the promotion, management or formation of a new company with a similar name.
It works a bit like this. Imagine a company called Football Limited has two directors – Mr Purple and Mr Yellow. Football Limited goes into liquidation. Mr Yellow then sets up a company called Football 2 Limited and becomes a director of that company. Subject to certain defined exceptions, it will be a criminal offence for Mr Yellow to be a director of Football 2 Limited because it has a name that suggests an association with the name of the company that went into liquidation.
In addition, if Football 2 Limited itself suffers an insolvency event, Mr Yellow can be personally liable for the debts of Football 2 Limited.
The important point therefore is that section 216 is pointed at people, not companies. For the avoidance of doubt, there is nothing in section 216 that would render Football 2 Limited liable for the debts of Football Limited. I am not aware of anything (other than (i) TUPE; or (ii) agreement on the part of Football 2 Limited) that could ever render it liable for Football Limited’s debts
There can however be other consequences for phoenix companies. For example, HMRC may be more likely to require Football 2 Limited to put forward a cash bond in security of certain revenue liabilities that it will incur than would be the case if it was not a phoenix company.
Hoopy 7 says: (90)
January 8, 2014 at 9:58 am
I think the key issue for CW and the Sevco 5088 putative claim on the assets of TRFC is the ability to mount a legal claim.
This will be an expensive litigation if it ever goes ahead.
Since the Letter Before Claim there hasn’t been any more visible movement .
I think that is ominous for those who wish to see Sevco 5088 have their day in court.
mikk67 says: (2)
January 8, 2014 at 11:20 am
Long time lurker, just saw this this morning, any ideas on this from anyone who understands this stuff better than I do?
==========================================================
No problem with lurking that’s how I usually start on any site while I make up my mind whether to take an active part in discussions.
However if you check back a couple of days you will find a post of mine which destroys the pathetic claims made regarding the Lennoxtown land purchase by Celtic. I have seen some childish claims made by Bears in the last few years with fabricated evidenceand straighforward lies but this one is quite sad.
Indeed the lack of investigative ability shown by the Bears who created the post and who think it has a shred of truth in it fully explains how they have been so comprehensively hoodwinked by the Spivs who have stolen their club and put Rangers the company into liquidation.
Once you have read my piece perhaps you could come back and then ask any questions which you feel remain unanswered.
Are there more Pandas in Scotland than Real Rangers Men
Just imagine how different all this could have been if D&P had been faced with a £10m bid from a collective of Rangers Men. The spivs would have been forced to stump up a lot more and may have backed off.
TheRangers could be debt free now, owned by football men and with a little business skill and a £22m IPO could be set on a virtuous spiral back (sic) to the top. Of course we’d all be livid and disillusioned and depressed – but alls fair in love and war.
But Murray (D), Murray (M), Murray (P), King,(D) and many others could not pull $10m and a business plan together. Maybe they agreed with Bill Millers £30m black hole analysis or maybe they simply lacked the cajones when it came to the big test. Or maybe a Rangers Man is actually just a taker not a giver. Whatever, they failed to repel the spivs and there was no way back.
In fairness, the SFA, SPL, SFL, MSM and friends delivered more that anyone could have asked for – trouble was they were delivering it for the benefit of the spivs – not Rangers Men – more fool them eh ! They must be feeling a bit silly now to have contributed to chateaux and Armageddon.
I remember an insolvency event of a well kent Scottish company not so long ago.
I hesitate to describe them as a recognisable entity.
It had been predicted that they would enter insolvency c. mid/end Nov 2011, but they eventually hit the skids mid Feb 2012.
Twas a puzzle as to why this discrepancy, since pretty solid figures had been seen, instead of guesses. How did they last a further 3 months?
Turned out that they hadnt remitted a fair amount of tax – around £12m.
With running costs at about £4m a month this explained the roughly three months worth of ‘using tax that should have been paid to HMRC as operating capital’.
It was likely of significance to someone’s bigger plan that included blatant debt-sheddery, that the January transfer window should be passed before any insolvency event.
…
Two years later
…
Speculation:
The figures swimming round in my head at the moment for this Rangers are that they had a 13 month operating loss (excl. one-offs) of £14m on a turnover of £19.5m.
I figure the operating costs are about £31m a yr. Around £2.6m a month.
I know there are accounts published giving actuals, but in honesty I cant be bothered.
If there was £10m in the bank early August…
(quoting their finance director from a fans meeting early August:
“Yes, we raised £22 million. It’s not true that we have £7 million in the bank.
Audited accounts will be out in mid-September and they will show that we have £10 million in the account. The Club is not in financial distress.”)
… then this would be enough to last about a third of a yr or around 4 months, unless costs were lower for this period for some reason.
So going by these rough figures, they had enough to last from early August until early Dec.
But the Audited accounts were to the end of the Jun-Jun accounting period, so that meant £10m should have ran out end October.
Without further funds they should now be insolvent.
Either way, how have they managed to limp on until now?
What would trigger enquiries from the SFA on the risk of any club not fulfilling fixtures?
What funds from the governing body(ies) due to be paid at some time this season, could be brought forward and paid now, should a club hit an insolvency event? Would this be the route to help a club in the mire, or would funds be withheld to pay ‘football debts’ as per the SPL and RFC(IL)?
Thanks Ecobhoy, I’ll do that. You’d think that if this rigorous approach had been taken to monitoring their own board’s activities in the last few years there may have been a much happier ending in sight!
PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (256)
January 8, 2014 at 12:04 pm
Hoopy 7 says: (90)
January 8, 2014 at 9:58 am
I think the key issue for CW and the Sevco 5088 putative claim on the assets of TRFC is the ability to mount a legal claim. This will be an expensive litigation if it ever goes ahead.
Since the Letter Before Claim there hasn’t been any more visible movement . I think that is ominous for those who wish to see Sevco 5088 have their day in court.
===================================================================
There has been some movement in the sense that it would appear RIFC no longers claims/recognises Sevco 5088 as a subsidiary company although no formal statement has been issued on this afaik. Also Sevco 5088 has actually filed a partial Annual Return.
However the Letter Before Claim was just part of the ‘pressure’ being exerted by one group of spivs on another and IMO there has never ever been any intention of letting this go to court as the legal risks are just too high for everyone involved. Can you imagine the evidential bonanza that BDO would be handed when the fur started flying in court between the Spivs.
Nope any deal done here between CW and the other camp will never see the light of day and any payments will be done offshore and never be traceable – that’s how they do it and the thought of Spivs going to court and telling all is a bit akin to driving a stake through the heart of a Vampire. It would destroy them permanently.
mikk67 says: (3)
January 8, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Thanks Ecobhoy, I’ll do that. You’d think that if this rigorous approach had been taken to monitoring their own board’s activities in the last few years there may have been a much happier ending in sight!
===========================================================================
It’s one of the enduring mysteries to me of the Rangers scenario and the one that poses the biggest danger in the future. However I don’t actually blame ordinary Bears but reserve more scorn for the many well-known and revered Rangers legends who don’t have the bottle to tell the support what is/was required to ‘save’ their club and ensure it is fit – and not just financially – to hold a place in Scottish Football commensurate with its Sporting abilities.
Ecobhoy, surely what that is saying is that the security would be against property owned/leased by Rangers Retail, not TRFC, so it would be any shops or suchlike that they rent/own?
John, if you click the link with the paper name and date at the top, you can read the entire paper. The editorial is on page 6
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=GGgVawPscysC&dat=19780330&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
ecobhoy says: (2191)
January 8, 2014 at 12:29 pm
It’s one of the enduring mysteries to me of the Rangers scenario and the one that poses the biggest danger in the future.
===========================================================================
That’s exactly what got me interested in this whole saga. Previously I had ZERO – and I mean ZZEERROO interest in Scottish football, But when I kept reading about Rangers directors flouncing out and them Bain ring fencing funds in case they folded before he could sue them, my interest was most definitely piqued.
I think we have a simple case of an all powerful empire (football/connections/wealth/media) that has destroyed itself from within, as many have done before, by succumbing to arrogance and decadence whilst losing sight of the fundamentals of their prior strength. The fall is usually fast and furious – mainly because all those with power have self-interest at heart far divorced from the fundamentals. Few have the courage to speak truth to power and those that do are banished as an example to others. The interesting thing for the future is the collateral damage to peripheral and confederate organisations.
scottc says: (429)
January 8, 2014 at 12:42 pm
‘…John, if you click the link ..’
—–
Thanks, scottc. Jeez, i’ve got a lot to learn about using this new-fangled stuff. ( I’ve just ordered some sealing-wax sticks and new pen nibs !)
ianagain says: (75)
January 7, 2014 at 11:22 pm
54 1 i
Rate This
Reason why I;m here
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19780330&id=rRc-AAAAIBAJ&sjid=KUoMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4464,6772001
——————————————————-
Quotes from the fans are illuminating:
“Our fans were well behaved until the Motherwell player made the gesture”
“Rangers cannot afford to lose points – and should not be penalised for what was really an offence by a player” (Motherwell player’s alleged V sign, the 1978 version of the Big Screen)
“If our great club are to be punished then so should the Motherwell player”
All that’s missing is the Chelsea casuals.
This is followed by SFA slap on the wrist hollow gesture fine with no tangible sporting repercussion, accompanied by big words promising to tighten up rules to sort out clubs other than Rangers who have the temerity to behave the same way.
The more things change…
Carl31 says: (115)
January 8, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Your figures don’t take into account the cash received from 1st July to date. From memory, at 30 June there was around £4.5m of ST money due to come in. Then there is the matchday income from maybe 15/20 home games. That might amount to around £3m. Add any sponsorship money, TV money and retail money received in the last 6 months, and you can see how they are still afloat (just). But they must be really close to running out of cash right now. That £2.5m in costs has to be found each and every month, and there isn’t much money coming in this month. Unless somebody is putting money in by way of loans, then the end must surely be near.
scottc says: (429)
January 8, 2014 at 12:39 pm
ecobhoy says: (2188)
January 8, 2014 at 10:23 am
================================
Any sums drawn down under the facility would be secured by a debenture to be given by Rangers Retail over all its freehold and leasehold property. The loan facility and debenture have not yet been entered into.’
Well we know from Rangers accounts that some of the loan to Rangers has been drawn-down but I haven’t seen anyone show that any debenture has been lodged against TRFCL freehold and leasehold property and I would think that the Ashley operation wouldn’t make mistakes like that.
========================================================================
Ecobhoy, surely what that is saying is that the security would be against property owned/leased by Rangers Retail, not TRFC, so it would be any shops or suchlike that they rent/own?
=============================================================================
If you go to the top of P27 of the Rangers AIM Document it states: ‘In the future, the Directors intend the Rangers Retail portfolio to comprise a strategic portfolio of Rangers own branded stores including the Ibrox megastore, outlets in Northern Ireland and a new airport site. The Board anticipates that the above stores will be operational in the first half of 2013 and it will continue to review further opportunities following these.’
I think that makes it fairly clear that the Rangers Retail property portfolio comprises Rangers freehold properties and leases and it would also IMO make little sense for a separate SportsDirect subsidiary to provide a £1.5 million loan to RangersRetail and then use SportsDirect properties to guarantee the loan.
However every word in any agreement which Green was involved in must be carefully examined and I wonder if anyone knows if there is a separate deed for the Ibrox megastore and which Rangers company held it. And has it been transferred? I had assumed that it was held by TRFCL but don’t know that for a fact. I also assumed that the Belfast and Glasgow Airport shops were leased by TRFCL but again that is an assumption.
There is also the question of what ‘Rangers own branded stores’ actually means. Does it mean stores ‘owned’ by Rangers or could it mean stores selling Rangers ‘own-brand’ products with a non-Rangers freehold or leasehold over the property. But I don’t think having an airport outlet fits-in with the Ashley commercial model for SportsDirect.
Edmiston House would be part of the Rangers Retail property portfolio although initially purchased by TRFCL because the Ibrox Megastore was meant to relocate there. I have always assumed that the £1.5 million loan from SportsDirect is for refurbishment of Edmiston House but I have never seen this actually stated.
Of course Rangers Retail has this curious shareholding with Rangers having 51% of the shareholding but because of the different classes of shares the 49% shareholding of SportsDirect outvotes Rangers on financial matters which really covers just about any actual important decision.
scottc says: (429)
January 8, 2014 at 12:42 pm
‘..The editorial is on page 6..’
——
So it is, indeed. And it seems to be fair enough in accepting the decision that the game should be replayed, and that the fault lay with the supporters who invaded.
I think it’s likely ( and accords with my memories) that the general run of football pressmen would have been just as ready to accept the decision, and say so.
There might still have been partisan reporters, but there wasn’t too much succulent lamb in pre-SDM days to bribe them into downright sycophancy ( to use a word Speirs’ used last night).
In those far-off but (ianagain!) not to be forgotten days, there were definitely men of integrity writing for our football pages, even if they had to grit their teeth while doing so!
The time is right for Scotland to try summer football!
With the 2022 WC looking like being played in Nov-Jan of 2022/23, i suggest we plan for a summer football trial
ok, ignoring the utter feckin nonsense of FIFA/Qatar etc in it all, at least we have 8 years or so notice of the change
so, assuming it is Nov/Dec/Jan of that year, why don’t the SFA/SPFL make plans to trial summer football
Assuming we DON’T qualify for the 2020 euros, we could start it in March 2020, all of 2021, 2022 and 2023
if we do qualify for the 2020 euros, the simply start it in 20201 – it could run into 2024, with a break in the middle should we qualify. (we’ll know by then if we are keeping it or changing it, so disruption at the end of the trial period if it’s getting binned won’t be a problem – and if we are keeping it – well, it’s just something we’ll have to get used to)
that gives us a good 4 year run at trying it without too much disruption
it’s far enough away to let existing tv deals run down – and allow a new “summer football” deal to be struck
DISCUSS BAMPOTS! is this a golden opportunity?
PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (256)
January 7, 2014 at 5:33 pm
34
1
Rate This
Quantcast
100BJD says: (122)
January 7, 2014 at 4:02 pm
Many thanks.
That is technical info I wasn’t in possession of.
That is tough apropos timescale.
Austerity through insolvency then?
—————————————————————————————————————————
I am very busy at the moment although I have given some thought to what I would do in Wallace’s unenviable position. I do not have the full facts although I can see that fans of a controlled prepack administration (a proper one this time) would have my attention. Perhaps the £2.5 million facility mentioned in the accounts might be used and become a debt at which point the major creditor (I hope) could control the prepack. This of course makes the unnamed lender the kingmaker (freudian slip there).
Unfortunately the controlled prepack route will also kill off the shareholders, including Laxeys who are no fools, and I can not see this happening. In this event Laxeys will, in my opinion force the drawbridge up by transferring the assets into the top company, and put the playing side into administration. I actually favour this one myself and it is interesting to see that the Easedales feature on both boards which is important to the success of this tactic.
The other avenue mentioned by the current board and the requistioners is a new share issue. Well I got this wrong before and I badly miscalculated the amount of institutional investment in the original floatation. I was not the only one and given the share price perhaps i/we were wrong although ultimately correct. I guess the EIS tax reliefs are part of a balanced portfolio scenario for the institutions. (The Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) is designed to help smaller higher-risk trading companies to raise finance by offering a range of tax reliefs to investors who purchase new shares in those companies.) The somewhat inexplicable Ticketus deal with Whyte could well be in the same genre, as basically the Whyte deal was buttons for the parent company Octopus and it would prove to HMRC that sometimes investments fail, thus lending credibility to what would otherwise be a safe tax dodge. Lloyds I am sure will reciprocate their windfall payback some time. Ticketus are just too smart to get done by a second rate chancer like Whyte so they knew the score. Getting back on track a rights issue is costly, especially in Scotland according to Mr Stockbridge, and at the current price will hugely dilute the existing shareholders (although not too much for the 1p owners) so I cannot see this as a viable position. I am afraid it is up with drawbridge and a leaseback to the buyers of the administered playing club/company for me less Chico Park for which I assume there is some plan. So administrated playing side bought by Rangers fan/s leasing Ibrox minus a training ground is my take on this at the moment and with limited information.Good luck with this one Mr Wallace!
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1097)
January 8, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Summer Football: DISCUSS BAMPOTS! is this a golden opportunity?
—————————-
Based on your reasoning and the fact I am a bit supporter of summer football, I would agree 100%. It might be an ideal opportunity to make a change as big as this. To take it a step further, I see this a great way for The SFA to actually take the lead and prove some worth, engage with the fans and make decisions based on popular opinion.
A point that you may have missed and has to be considered is what The governing bodies stance will be on playing the normal footballing schedule during the games, if Scotland are not involved but are prevented from playing domestic games due to TV contracts or non Scottish players not available due to being away with their teams, how will that be covered? For me, all leagues will have to come to a standstill during that time.
Re Sevco 5088
No accounts…just changing the year end
AA01 29/11/2013 PREVEXT FROM 31/03/2013 TO 31/08/2013
Folder AR01 14/11/2013 29/03/13 FULL LIST
Capital Statement Icon LATEST SOC 14/11/2013 14/11/13 STATEMENT OF CAPITAL;GBP 10000001
Document TM01 14/11/2013 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR CHARLES GREEN
Document TM01 14/11/2013 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR CHARLES GREEN
Document AD01 14/11/2013 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 14/11/2013 FROM
35 VINE STREET
LONDON
EC3N 2AA
Document DS02 12/11/2013 DISS REQUEST WITHDRAWN
Document SOAS(A) 08/08/2013 VOLUNTARY STRIKE OFF SUSPENDED
Document SOAS(A) 03/05/2013 VOLUNTARY STRIKE OFF SUSPENDED
Document AD01 19/04/2013 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 19/04/2013 FROM, 35 VINE STREET, LONDON, EC3N 2AA, ENGLAND
Document AD01 17/04/2013 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 17/04/2013 FROM, 48 SKYLINES VILLAGE, SKYLINES VILLAGE LIMEHARBOUR, LONDON, E14 9TS, ENGLAND
Document AD01 12/04/2013 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 12/04/2013 FROM, 35 VINE STREET, LONDON, EC3N 2AA, UNITED KINGDOM
Document AP01 12/04/2013 DIRECTOR APPOINTED AIDAN CHAS EARLEY
Document AP01 12/04/2013 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR CRAIG THOMAS WHYTE
Document GAZ1(A) 15/01/2013 FIRST GAZETTE NOTICE FOR VOLUNTARY STRIKE-OFF
Document DS01 07/01/2013 APPLICATION FOR STRIKING-OFF
Document RES11 14/06/2012 DISAPPLICATION OF PRE-EMPTION RIGHTS
Document AP01 04/05/2012 DIRECTOR APPOINTED CHARLES ALEXANDER GREEN
Document AD01 04/05/2012 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 04/05/2012 FROM, 14/18 CITY ROAD, CARDIFF, CF24 3DL, UNITED KINGDOM
Document TM01 04/05/2012 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR SAMUEL LLOYD
Document NEWINC 29/03/2012 CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
GENERAL COMPANY DETAILS & STATEMENTS OF;
OFFICERS, CAPITAL & SHAREHOLDINGS, GUARANTEE, COMPLIANCE
MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION
ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
——————————————————————————–
Must admit to being a little worried with the land deals especially with all the other clubs under investigation. I remember reading about the Real Madrid deals many years ago and thinking something wasn’t right. Not that I’m saying Celtics case is similar I simply don’t know enough about it. But if they haven’t let R Madrid away with it the odds are a fairly robust look at the Celtic deals will be looked at. I hope everything is above board and from what I’ve read on here it seems the more likely scenario.
ecobhoy says: (2192)
January 8, 2014 at 12:29 pm
I eventually found your post on a very slow connection in the barber’s, certainly answers my questions on Lennoxtown.
I’m guessing that as fond as I am of Celtic Park & its surroundings, placing a value of £5 -£10 million pounds on the land there demonstrates a level of optimism equalled only by the surveyors who valued Ibrox in the final days of the David Murray regime! Surely such a patently spurious case will require very little investigation?
How will Mr Wallace act in the next few weeks?
He will do what he was and is being told to do.
Mr Somers the Chairman appointed him..
The Spiv Consortium appointed Mr Somers.
The outcome will be determined by whichever way generates the most cash for the Spiv Consortium Puppetmasters.
Strictly numbers.
Strictly business.
MoreCelticParanoia says: (94)
January 8, 2014 at 12:59 pm
ianagain says: (75)
===========================
As a diddy club supporter I have to state that that is the incident I always referred to when I got into arguments re the ‘help’ Old Rangers used to get – and it being claimed it was just because they were a “big” club and nothing more sinister than that. There is no way it can be argued that that decision (or rather running away from a decision) proved beyond doubt they had special influence. Not that you could ever convince one of their supporters.
Madbhoy24941 says: (345)
January 8, 2014 at 3:29 pm
0 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1097)
January 8, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Summer Football: DISCUSS BAMPOTS! is this a golden opportunity?
—————————-
Based on your reasoning and the fact I am a bit supporter of summer football, I would agree 100%. It might be an ideal opportunity to make a change as big as this. To take it a step further, I see this a great way for The SFA to actually take the lead and prove some worth, engage with the fans and make decisions based on popular opinion.
A point that you may have missed and has to be considered is what The governing bodies stance will be on playing the normal footballing schedule during the games, if Scotland are not involved but are prevented from playing domestic games due to TV contracts or non Scottish players not available due to being away with their teams, how will that be covered? For me, all leagues will have to come to a standstill during that time.
===========================================
i think the bigger issue with the WC or Euros landing “mid season” is that players would be called away for international games. This may lead to teams cancelling fixtures if they lose players to international call ups.
But i think you miss my point, in the 4 year trial period there would be summer football – and no international tournaments on – so there would be no need to release players nor would there be a tv schedule clash
but going forward that may be an issue, if we decide to keep it, then the next WC/Euro’s will be in the middle of the season – and this would happen every other year.
I don’t think fixture scheduling would be a big issue – for example, if there is a CL game on, you can’t screen a domestic game, but you can move the domestic game a few hours forward/backward or to the next day. So that should be manageable. the bigger obstacle is when players are called up and teams weakened – games will be cancelled – but then these teams will just have to face up to the fixture backlog later in the year – maybe we could extend the season for them!
neepheid says: (980)
January 8, 2014 at 9:09 am
……………………………..
I would have thought the closer they transfer an asset out before administration the more obvious alienation becomes.
Simply transferring assets out to avoid having them used or sold to pay off debts has to be alienation.
m.c.f.c. says: (115)
January 8, 2014 at 12:07 pm
17 0 Rate This
Are there more Pandas in Scotland than Real Rangers Men
Just imagine how different all this could have been if D&P had been faced with a £10m bid from a collective of Rangers Men. The spivs would have been forced to stump up a lot more and may have backed off.
TheRangers could be debt free now, owned by football men and with a little business skill and a £22m IPO could be set on a virtuous spiral back (sic) to the top. Of course we’d all be livid and disillusioned and depressed – but alls fair in love and war.
But Murray (D), Murray (M), Murray (P), King,(D) and many others could not pull $10m and a business plan together. Maybe they agreed with Bill Millers £30m black hole analysis or maybe they simply lacked the cajones when it came to the big test. Or maybe a Rangers Man is actually just a taker not a giver. Whatever, they failed to repel the spivs and there was no way back.
In fairness, the SFA, SPL, SFL, MSM and friends delivered more that anyone could have asked for – trouble was they were delivering it for the benefit of the spivs – not Rangers Men – more fool them eh ! They must be feeling a bit silly now to have contributed to chateaux and Armageddon.
=============================
It seemed to me that D&P steered the sale where it was desired, regardless of who was making the best bid. However they did it, I think they managed to put off any real bidders in favour of the spivs and rangers men who were at that point aligned.
Since then it seems the spivs have taken almost total control and the rangers men have since realised their mistake and must be kicking themselves that they handed it all over so easily.
Chateauxmageddon has a certain ring to it.
n. complete financial disaster for a company and its shareholders resulting in large rewards for a small group of individuals of a spivy inclination
??
coineanachantaighe says: (380)
January 8, 2014 at 3:45 pm
=======================
Exactly right coinetc. I remember the M’well pitch invasion and the fact that they got away with it very well. It reflected the “institutional bias” that there has always been.
When I hear some of the whataboutery I “shaks ma heid” as they say up here. Big clubs always get the breaks, that’s the way it is in any league. My TA pals who support lower league teams advise me that that is the case when they play SPL teams. I’m also aware that the Dons of the 80’s got the breaks now and then also. Manyoo/Chelski/Arsenal etc tend to in the EPL. Real and Barca (The catalan version as opposed to the matalan) do in Spain. It’s ludicrous to suppose that Celtic don’t in Scotland. But what we saw in the M’well incident and over the last few years is not run of the mill “getting the breaks”. It’s institutionalised just as racism was adjudged to be in the Met as opposed to a few racist one liners here and there. There’s a big difference, the latter can be brushed aside and will generally wilt under peer pressure; the former needs firmer action. Keep up the fight and miss out the whataboutery I say!
Matty Roth says: (60)
January 8, 2014 at 3:55 pm
Chateauxmageddon has a certain ring to it.
===============================================================================
Matty – As I remember, the Rangers Men were too busy bickering amongst themselves to get together and save their club. I think D&P would have found it very difficult to side-step a serious offer from a bunch of serious Rangers Men in favour of Charles Green who had popped up from no where only days before the sale.
Speaking of Charles – I bet his race horses have some cheeky names – wouldn’t be surprised if one of them was Chateauxmageddon 🙂
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1098)
January 8, 2014 at 3:50 pm
0 0 Rate This
Madbhoy24941 says: (345)
January 8, 2014 at 3:29 pm
0 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1097)
January 8, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Summer Football: DISCUSS BAMPOTS! is this a golden opportunity?
====================
In many ways I would like to see a winter break but summer football might not be the panacea everyone thinks. Lots of other things happen in summer like people going on holidays, alternative uses for football pitches (this can impact clubs being able to train), other sports conflicting (I know of at least ten season ticket holders in my last cricket club alone and in chats about this, most said they would give up their ST).
Also, for those of us who grew up playing on blaes, dry, dusty pitches can have the same effect on skin… 😯
Oldcobrokemyheartbycheating says: (109)
January 8, 2014 at 3:38 pm
It is common for local and national government to “gift” land or sell it very cheaply to a company that will develop that land and create jobs. It is perfectly acceptable and something that should be encouraged.
Oldcobrokemyheartbycheating says: (109)
January 8, 2014 at 3:38 pm
Must admit to being a little worried with the land deals especially with all the other clubs under investigation. I remember reading about the Real Madrid deals many years ago and thinking something wasn’t right. Not that I’m saying Celtics case is similar I simply don’t know enough about it. But if they haven’t let R Madrid away with it the odds are a fairly robust look at the Celtic deals will be looked at. I hope everything is above board and from what I’ve read on here it seems the more likely scenario.
=============================================
Might I suggest that if you have any worries about the purchase of the land at Lennoxtown by Celtic that you read my recent post on the subject:
ecobhoy says: (2192)
January 2, 2014 at 2:43 pm
There are many many more points I could have made in my article to demolish the Bear fiction however I felt I did more than enough to establish the facts of what was a simple and transparent land purchase by Celtic and the whole process was open to scrutiny and publicly documented.
On the other hand so much of what happens at Ibrox is shrouded in secrecy and the Bears don’t even know who owns their club or what the Spivs intend to do with it. I would have thought that would be a priority for Bears worried about the future of their own club.
There’s no doubt it is mischief from over Govan way as it was always going to happen. I have read your post Ecobhoy and as I said on the balance of things I believe Celtic will be cleared of any wrongdoing. They have got their deflection agenda set now and will be feeling very proud of that I bet. This blog won’t let that happen though I’m sure and the more savvy posters will know the tactic being employed. My only worry is for Celtic to get dragged into an investigation where the mud slinging will be relentless.
My credit card company just offered me an interest free period on balance transfers for 2 years but I am turning it down because it sounds immoral and corrupt to me..
I am gonna buy a new house, going for £265k but in the current difficult property climate I have heard they will accept bids for £210k but I am not taking the discounted price as it sound immoral and corrupt to me.
My pal built his new house on some farm land as the farm had closed down. The house is lovely like a paradise and he is looking to extend. He paid £4k per sq feet for his original house build but the land owner have quoted him £1,5k per sq Feet for his extension as the land is lying derelict, a bit of an eyesore, however he will not take that option up as it sounds immoral and corrupt to him.
😕
m.c.f.c. says: (116)
January 8, 2014 at 4:15 pm
3 0 Rate This
Matty – As I remember, the Rangers Men were too busy bickering amongst themselves to get together and save their club. I think D&P would have found it very difficult to side-step a serious offer from a bunch of serious Rangers Men in favour of Charles Green who had popped up from no where only days before the sale.
Speaking of Charles – I bet his race horses have some cheeky names – wouldn’t be surprised if one of them was Chateauxmageddon 🙂
============================================================
I always got the impression that Green didn’t so much pop up but arrived on the scene to front a long standing bid that D&P had kept in the background while flirting with the Bill Millers etc. It also seemed that a number of potential bidders stepped forward and I’d imagine as many again did so behind closed doors only for every single one of them to be “put off” before a much devalued deal was completed with Green.
I don’t buy for one moment that was a last minute deal and I think it was always plan A for the people Green fronted for to take up the reigns.
I get the feeling some Rangers men knew something was afoot or at least that any attempt to pull together a bid was doomed to failure so just stayed clear.
And of course if any of that was the case Green appears to have gone delinquent of the original “plan”.
All complete speculation of course.
And the end result is the same either way.
beatipacificiscotia says: (210)
January 8, 2014 at 4:30 pm
Oldcobrokemyheartbycheating says: (109)
January 8, 2014 at 3:38 pm
It is common for local and national government to “gift” land or sell it very cheaply to a company that will develop that land and create jobs. It is perfectly acceptable and something that should be encouraged.
=====================================================
I didn’t really go into the economic benefits gained through the Celtic development in Lennoxtown but concentrated on the ludicrous basis that the Bear poster valued the ground at Lennoxtown by taking the average Scottish value per hectare of land with housebuilding permission.
The land purchased by Celtic was restricted to a use compatible with Green Belt constraints and which there was never ever going to be housebuilding permission granted.
The other prong of the Blue attack was a nasty personalised one on the CEO of GGHB at the time and basically accused him of a criminal act by personally ‘arranging’ the sale in favour of Celtic because he signed the sale agreement. Apparently on the basis that he has an Irish-sounding name and people with that surname have played for Celtic and been part of the club admnistration.
He actually signed the agreement on behalf of the Ministers of the Scottish Government because he was the authorised signatory for GGHB of which he was CEO at the time. He had no vote in the decision to sell the land and merely witnessed the document. Every stage of the process iby the Health Board to sell land at Lennoxtown is publicly minuted years before celtic even became interested in part of the site.
This is the desperate and dangerous nonsense that passes as investigation fed to Bears to fuel their hatred and keep their attention away from what is happening at Ibrox. No wonder they are in such a mess.
I just can’t get my head round the stupidity of Bears who think that Celtic would pay building land prices and situate a training ground on it. It just doesn’t make any sense although that is not unusual in terms of Rangers’ approach to finances. If I was a Bear I would be more worried about what is about to happen to Murray Park than the deflection they are being fed over Lennoxtown.
Oldcobrokemyheartbycheating says: (110)
January 8, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Do You smell a Jack influence? 😈
Many posters have alluded to the concept of “trading illegally whilst insolvent”. The relevant law is section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
The section itself does not actually use the term “wrongful trading” but the concept is generally known by that name.
Section 214 states that if directors reach a point when they know or should know that an insolvency event cannot reasonably be expected to be avoided, then, from that point on, they are under a duty to take every step they can, with a view to minimising the potential loss to creditors in the ensuing insolvency.
If, following an insolvency event, it can be shown that a director did not take every such step to minimise the loss to creditors, then that director can be obliged to contribute to the shortfall to the creditors that arises in the insolvency.
In other words, if the directors of a company carry on running the company even though they should be able to see that insolvency will be inevitable, their assets are personally at risk.
I would make a couple of points:-
1. only an insolvency practitioner can raise wrongful trading proceedings. So, there is no question of anyone else (for example HMRC) stepping in prior to an insolvency and claiming that a business is being run wrongfully.
2. It is not a criminal offence. The sanction is that the directors themselves can incur personal liability to contribute to the shortfall in the assets of the insolvent company.
3. Wrongful trading cases are exceedingly rare.
There are a number of reasons for the rarity of wrongful trading cases. The most obvious ones are that liquidators tend not to have unlimited funds at their disposal to be raising court actions or that the directors are not worth suing. The very nature of a wrongful trading case involves a forensic analysis of the financial position of the company at various times in the past and that analysis is often both complex and open to evidential challenge. In addition, it can rarely be said with any certainty exactly when the directors knew, or ought to have known, that insolvency would be almost certain to occur. If you think about it, in every insolvency, at some point prior to the insolvency event actually taking place, the directors must have known that there was no reasonable prospect of the company avoiding insolvency. It is the gap between when they should have realised that insolvency would occur and when the insolvency does occur that is the “wrongful trading risk period” for the directors. A further complication is that different directors can have differing knowledge of the financial and trading position of a company. For this purpose, a finance director (who will invariably be an accountant) is likely to be deemed to have a better knowledge of the position than some of the other directors (e.g. a former employee of long service who may have been co-opted on to the board to give some semblance of looking after the interests of employees). Accordingly it is possible for one or more members of a board of directors to be found liable for wrongful trading but not other board members.
Although wrongful trading cases are very rare, the section does, in many cases, achieve its purpose by curbing the worst excesses of reckless continuation of trade long after there is any prospect of avoiding liquidation. The prospect of losing the privilege of limited liability is often enough to focus the minds of directors on what they are doing.
So:
(a) its not criminal; and
(b) no creditor prior to an insolvency can use the concept of wrongful trading in any meaningful way.
Final point – if a CVA is approved, there will be no wrongful trading proceedings brought.
Bangordub says: (303)
January 8, 2014 at 5:17 pm
Jack moves in mysterious ways 😛
Lots of rumours at my place of work today about administration ‘2’. The idea of a ‘club’ who have an insolvency event but are nevertheless promoted probably trumps anything and everything which has disgusted us to date with this debacle.
Matty Roth says: (61)
January 8, 2014 at 5:06 pm
================================================================================
That seems to be how it worked from observation – but I guess we’ll never know the details for sure. Maybe the Rangers Men were sold the line that “Green will get us through this then you can get involved when things have settled down”. I’ve also heard it argued that Rangers Men needed to have a long term plan and be able to fill the £30m black hole whereas the spivs only ever needed a 1-2 year crash-and-burn plan. But it’s inescapable that the Rangers Men let the club down, let the company down, let the fans down and let themselves down.
Incidentally, it’s still a mystery to me how D&P have avoided law suits and criminal action given that their court appointed duty was to act in the best interests of the creditors – not the football club owned by the company in administration. Maybe BDO will change this but I can’t get excited about their role so far . . . .
Ecobhoy’s Lennoxtown post from January 2, 2014 at 2:43 pm is well worth a read and can be linked to here – http://www.tsfm.org.uk/2013/12/reflections-on-goalposts/comment-page-11/#comment-79501
Campbellsmoney says: (3)
January 8, 2014 at 11:57 am
………………………………
The financial man to go to for STV in the last 2 years on the SEVCO saga has been Neil Patey. When asked what would happen after liquidation he suggested they would have to Phoenix across to a newly formed club.
Phoenix across…interesting choice of words!
m.c.f.c. says: (118)
January 8, 2014 at 5:31 pm
3 0 Rate This
=======================================
I heartily agree.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/10449524/Fifas-ethics-committee-has-no-power-to-remove-World-Cup-2022-from-Qatar-even-if-bribes-took-place.html
LNS chairing the FIFA Ethics committee? Shades of ‘once the player’s registration is accepted …’
Time for new governing bodies, at all levels.
Summer football would play havoc with the marching season, I’m all for that.
Rumours, dean shiels moving to a bigger league with his ole man.
http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=5212
Celtic Football Club statement
By: Newsroom Staff on 08 Jan, 2014 18:03
IN response to stories in today’s media concerning Celtic, the club has released the following statement.
‘Celtic Football Club operates to the highest standards and with the utmost integrity. At a time when the Club is committed to investing in and improving areas around Celtic Park, not only for Celtic supporters but for the benefit of the local community, it is sad that these baseless accusations have been raised with the European Commission.
´Any suggestion that Celtic has been the beneficiary of state aid is preposterous – as ludicrous as any suggestion that we have benefited from soft loans from our bankers. The historic transactions referred to were negotiated with the Council on commercial terms at market rates.
´The Club will assist the Commission fully with the process and will not be deterred from our work to improve our local area.´