Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century


Blu says: October 11, 2013 at 11:17 am redlichtie says: October 11, …

Comment on Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century by redlichtie.

blu says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:17 am
redlichtie says:
October 11, 2013 at 10:04 am
Redlichtie, I see what you’re driving at here, and clubs would be wise to have proper procedures in place to check whether staff have a criminal conviction or, if working with children and/or vulnerable adults, have been checked with Disclosure Scotland. However, for directors the SFA and clubs should be guided by Companies House – see guidance below. From the information about him, some provided by him, in the public domain I’d struggle to not bar Mr King, if it was my decision.
Thanks Blu. The problem is that no-one is going to look at the Companies House criteria because Regan says it would take a ‘cast of thousands’ to conduct investigations. That and presumed cost allows him to throw the matter back into the responsibility of clubs.

Use of Disclosure Scotland (probably already in use for club employees) is a cheap and hopefully effective way to address what is needed.

The South African version is more limited but would hopefully also do the job in this case.

If someone like Dave King, with all the baggage clearly set out in the Forum today, is able to be classed as a fit and proper person to have an influence over a Scottish Football Club then we really do need to think about packing up and going home. There are signs of group insanity here – doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. A proven tax avoider with direct connections to the previous club is not what is now needed at Ibrokes.

BTW has anyone checked the latest SFA regulations just to make sure that the ‘fit and proper’ test hasn’t been replaced by a ‘glib and shameless liar’ one? Isn’t it awful that you even think such a thing might be conceivable?

Scottish Football needs the SFA to show that they understand the need for integrity in the running of our clubs.

redlichtie Also Commented

Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century
EKBhoy says: (124)
October 18, 2013 at 1:13 pm
I believe in a few months, you will see pictures of the Easdales in the MSM stating “We were duped!”
They will have been sold the story that they will be the Kings of Ibrox, swoop up the shares , you can own all of this, the men to lead Rangers back to glory, the pinnacle of Scottish football (or should that be the top of the bottom half of Scottish football). They are a human shield for the Spivs.
Have you guys seen the film “The Long Good Friday”? Who is the Bob Hoskins character in this saga?

Scottish football needs a good scriptwriter.

Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century
100BJD says: (81)
October 18, 2013 at 10:24 am
…….Kind of paints a picture for me that CW is wanting his cut or else he may resort to actually producing the “smoking gun” which is definitely out there!
But what is this ‘smoking gun’?

The latest from Charlotte indicates a possibility that “Mr Green provided Mr Whyte with a signed blank stock transfer form and a letter resigning as a director of 5088, but it is unclear if he did provide these documents, and, if he did, whether that was before or after the Asset Purchase Agreement was signed.”

Is CW in possession of such documents? Was it before the Asset Purchase Agreement was signed?

Was it before any purported novation between Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland?

These are huge questions with a potentially cataclysmic effect on TRFC/RIFC, especially as RIFC stated to the LSE on 24 April 2013 that Sevco 5088 was :

“…not an active subsidiary of the Rangers International Football Club plc. It is and has been a defunct non trading company over which termination proceedings began last year and which would have been struck off by the Registrar of Companies had false claims of directorships not been filed recently at Companies House. Sevco 5088 was listed in the company’s announcement dated 22 April 2013 to comply with the AIM Rules for Companies requiring disclosure of directorships held by the directors of the company both currently and during the preceding 5 years. Sevco 5088 was not the acquisition vehicle which purchased the assets of Rangers Football Club.”

So who actually owns Sevco 5088 and who authorised any novation of rights over the purchase of Rangers assets to Sevco Scotland?

Why is Sevco 5088 not shown as a (dormant) subsidiary in the latest RIFC accounts? Having been important enough to merit a stock exchange regulatory announcement back in April stating that there had been “false claims of directorships” why this omission? According to Companies House just this week Sevco 5088 still exists with Green, Whyte and Earley as directors.

Were Deloittes unaware of this situation? What were they told that justified making no mention of ownership of Sevco 5088 in the Annual Report on Page 38 Section 13 Investments where they make mention of much lower profile “Rangers Media Limited, which is a dormant company” and Garrion Security and Rangers Retail?

And from elsewhere in the Annual Report : “On 14 June 2012, Sevco 5088 Limited entered into agreements for no consideration to legally reassign its beneficial interest in funding placing letters held and to novate the trade and assets purchase agreement with RFC 2012 plc (in administration), to Sevco Scotland Limited (now The Rangers Football Club Ltd).”

Having as I understand it paid £200,000 to acquire the rights to purchase the assets of Rangers why would Sevco 5088 pass such rights to Sevco Scotland for ‘no consideration’?

Again if ownership of Sevco 5088 is/was held by RIFC how has the closure/financial performance of Sevco 5088 been treated?

One must assume that there has been a considerable loss at Sevco 5088 due to the transaction undertaken. How is this viewed by the tax authorities? Disposal of an asset for no consideration to a related company after expending a considerable amount of money to acquire it sounds dodgy…. (I appreciate that in the world of TRFC/RIFC this is not earth shaking news!).

Do any of the authorities ever do anything about this kind of thing? Are Deloittes comfortable with all of this? Did the NOMAD have sight of the Deloittes/Pinsent Masons reports? At what point does even a tame NOMAD have to ask AIM to suspend the shares?

Scottish Football needs very strong Arbroath.

Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century
From our good pal Charlotte this fine evening….

“2. Potential nightmare and first indication of a major cover up. Pinsent 3 May 2013

17 However, there is some evidence of a potential side arrangement among Messrs. Ahmad, Green, Whyte, Earley and Rizvi. The terms of any arrangement (if indeed there was one) are currently unclear and are likely to only become clearer following interviews of Messrs Green, Ahmad, Whyte, Earley and Rizvi. There is also the possibility that Mr Green provided Mr Whyte with a signed blank stock transfer form and a letter resigning as a director of 5088, but it is unclear if he did provide these documents, and, if he did, whether that was before or after the Asset Purchase Agreement was signed.”

Being an extract of uncertain provenance we must be careful with any interpretations of this passage.

Notwithstanding that, if this is from Pinsent then they appear to have some evidence of a ‘potential side arrangement’ amongst a merry band including CW, CG and Interpol favourite Rizvi.

From what I previously understood there were some difficulties in getting members of this merry band to give interviews on the subject. Unfortunate that as the possibility that “Mr Green provided Mr Whyte with a signed blank stock transfer form and a letter resigning as a director of 5088” is most interesting to say the least.

How could Pinsent have arrived at the conclusion that such a thing might have happened?

Scottish Football needs the SFA to demand immediate sight of any initial, interim and the final reports prepared by Deloittes/Pinsent Masons. Are assurances from RIFC/TRFC of any value whatsoever?

Recent Comments by redlichtie

Moving On Time?
Competition watchdog to probe Rangers and retailers over replica kits

By Henry Saker-Clark, PA City Reporter

1 hour ago

The UK competition watchdog has launched an investigation into Rangers FC and sportswear retailers over the price of replica football kits.

On Wednesday, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) confirmed it has opened an initial inquiry into potential “anti-competitive behaviour”.

It said it is probing Rangers and Hummel, which manufactures the club’s kit, as well as retailers Greaves Sports and JD Sports.

The investigation process, which is expected to take six months, will look into suspected breaches of competition law, it said.

The regulator said: “At this stage the CMA believes that it has reasonable grounds to suspect one or more breaches of competition law.

Moving On Time?
Re the accounts – page 46 has an interesting entry on a "debt for £2.278M due from a single debtor" . Is this a claim against Big Mike? Someone else? £2.278M is a lot of tat if that is what it relates to….

Hope they are right about it being recoverable.

If it's not recoverable then does their loss for the year go up to £19.74M, almost double the previous year (£11.277M)?

A slightly concerning direction of travel especially in today's pandemic and economic environment.

On the brighter side are they not now the world leaders in the production of confetti? 🙂    

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

Sweet Little Lies
Time for an SFM petition open to any other stakeholders to join?

"Scottish football supporters have no confidence in the SFA and SPFL."

Scottish Football needs to register dissatisfaction with the football authorities at this critical time.

Sweet Little Lies
Homunculus 19th May 2020 at 10:38

I believe the basic rule with any contract is that if there is an area of dubiety then it should be read to favour the party which did not draw up the agreement.

That could however just be something I got into my head, I have no way of substantiating it whatsoever. 

It might be called contra proferentem.


I’m with you on this Homunculus.

The Competition and Markets Authority might have something to say about that clause too.    (“Report a business behaving unfairly during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak”)

Rangers* will have insurance to cover it anyway. Won’t they?

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

Sweet Little Lies
Cluster One 18th May 2020 at 23:18

omunculus 18th May 2020 at 19:04
upthehoops 18th May 2020 at 18:51
Celtic and the ibrox club’s terms and conditions.
Celtic. If the club is umable to complete a match fixture to provide a result for the purpouse of the football authorities due to causes beyond the control of the club,and the match fixture is not re-scheduled, the holder will be compensated for any corresponding reduction in services.
The ibrox club. The club cannot eccept any liability for any expense incurred even in the event that the match is cancelled.


C1, I saw and commented on the Rangers* clause some time back. I’m not a lawyer but it didn’t seem to me to be a clear cut statement that there would be no refund if matches were cancelled. What it did say was that they accepted no responsibility for any “expense incurred even in the event that the match was cancelled’.

Does that imply that they DO have responsibility for a partial refund of the season ticket? If not, why not also make that crystal clear in the same clause?

Rangers* only appear to exclude a responsibility to cover an expense incurred. There was no definition of ‘expense’ or ‘expense incurred’ in the passage I saw. Does ‘expense incurred’ include the cost of the ticket? Is the “expense incurred” the costs resultant on the changed match timing or cancellation? Arguable I suspect – any legal precedent?

The Celtic* clause covering this seems fairly clear to me. “If the Club is unable to complete a match fixture to provide a result for the purposes of the football authorities due to causes beyond the control of the Club, and that match fixture is not re-scheduled, the Holder will be compensated for any corresponding reduction in services.” 

For reasons beyond Celtic’s control the matches cannot be completed and are not being re-scheduled = a refund.

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

Celtic* – joshing, folks… 🙂

About the author