Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: March 7, 2014 at 12:54 …

Comment on Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed? by Campbellsmoney.

Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
March 7, 2014 at 12:54 pm
1 0 i
Rate This

i take it the fact that most of these players had CONTRACTS stating they would receive money for playing, appearances and bonus’s is completely irrelevant to the FTT/UTT

it’s quite simple, they had contracts. it wasn’t a loan.


1. Was the “lender” able to demand repayment?
2. At the time of making the “loan”, was the intention of the “lender” that no demand would ever be made and thus that no repayment ever be required?

I would suggest that is the answer to 1 is “yes”, then the law would generally say that that is a loan.

However if the answer to 2 is also “yes”, then I would suggest that even if the answer to 1 was “yes” then the law will say that is not a loan at all. It is a gift (or other contractual payment) dressed up to look like a loan.

But (and here is the evidentially difficult bit) intentions are not often written down. So the courts have to assess intention from the evidence available. Evidence such as side letters, dismissing “independent” trustees who ain’t doing what they are told, adjusting remuneration levels depending upon whether a loan is accepted or not, hiding documents …..etc etc etc etc.

But tax law has always seemed to me like a strange foreign country.

Campbellsmoney Also Commented

Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?
an “unnatural interest” in the club’

Is that like a shareholding?

Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?
easyJambo says:
April 1, 2014 at 1:18 pm

Thanks – that is helpful.

Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?
easyJambo says:
April 1, 2014 at 11:14 am
0 0 i
Rate This

Campbellsmoney says: April 1, 2014 at 10:55 am
UBIG will get absolutely nothing in Liquidation. Ukio is the first ranked and secured creditor both through a fixed security and a floating charge (total £15M), therefore has first call on the property assets.

The £2.5M is as good as Ukio will get (less £225K of BDO’s fees). The old Tynecastle school site (behind the Roseburn stand) was recently sold for £600K. The site is around 2/3 of the size of Tynecastle, so the £2.5M going to Ukio represents a very good deal for the creditors (of Ukio).

UBIG hold approx 49.5% of Hearts shares, so Siauliu Bank may feel that they have a value. They have been offered a token £50K for the shareholding. I don’t see much room for negotiation. If the offer is refused then Hearts will be liquidated and there will be no £50K or anything else.

UBIG actually abstained from the CVA vote, while Ukio voted in favour. I suspect that some spin is being placed on the story re Siauliu being unhappy with the deal. The reality is that Hearts are small fry in the bigger scheme of UBIG’s and Ukio’s insolvencies, so it may be simply that they have asked for more information before the creditors meeting on 7th April.

Thanks EJ – do UBIG own UKIO (or is it the other way round?) or am I off on one completely?

I hope you are right and that it is a temporary blip.

Recent Comments by Campbellsmoney

.. and they wonder why nobody buys papers
I was in The 20 Horseshoe

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

I really can’t explain what you have asked with any certainty but here are some thoughts and comments.

We can’t be sure that the claim is by DK.

In a CVA, it is necessary to get 75% of creditors to vote in favour. But it is also necessary to get 50% of unconnected creditors to vote in favour. Directors claims will be treated as connected.

There is no reason why a creditor should not, if they want to, not claim in A CVA but later decide to submit a claim in the liquidation. It would be unusual but not prohibited.

As for how an investment in equity in one company can later become a claim to be a creditor in another company – that I simply cannot explain. I can only suggest that we do not have all the necessary facts.

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resinlabdog well said sir (or madam).

Anyone out there want to discuss what the phrase “sense of entitlement ” might mean when it is not being used about a team from Govan?

BigPink – :”phoenix” companies has no meaning in law. None whatsoever. So if Sir David Murray, Craig Whyte, John Greig, Bill Struth and Lawrence Marlborough all get appointed to the board of either of the companies currently trading as Rangers, it matters little. What do you think will (or perhaps should) “trigger “?

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

Are you Bob Crampsey? 🙂


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Regarding 216 again (sorry )

Even if Sevco had not changed its name, 216 would still apply because the company trades as Rangers. 216 strikes at trading names as well as company names.

Mr King has made great play today of how s216 is a little known piece of legislation. And how the old board have referred to it.

His intention in doing so is of course to suggest that but for the old board raising the issue, he would not have had to bother going through the court to get leave to be involved in a Rangers company.

Well funnily enough, the law applies whether or not anyone knows about it. In fact, if he didn’t know about it until the old board mentioned it he should perhaps say thank you.

About the author