Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?

Avatar ByTrisidium

Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?

A Guest Blog by Auldheid for TSFM

Honesty requires both transparency and accountability. In pursuit of honest, transparent and accountable governance of Scottish football, and only that objective, the following letter, with attachments, has been sent to SPFL lawyers, CEO and SPFL Board Members.

An honest game free from deception is what football supporters of all clubs want. It is the action the letter and attachments prompt that will tell us if there is any intention of providing it.

It is a response on behalf of readers here on TSFM, but the sentiment which underpins it is almost universally held amongst fans of all clubs.  Importantly it is a response directly to all clubs, especially those with a SPFL Board member, that will make the clubs and the football authorities aware just how seriously supporters take the restoration of trust in an honest game, honestly governed.

The annexes to the letter contain information which may be published at a later date. We thought it appropriate to first await any response from any of the recipients.

Please also draw this to the attention of friends who are not internet using supporters and love their football and their club.

Auldheid

__________________________________________________________________

Harper MacLeod
The Ca’d’oro
45 Gordon Street
Glasgow
G1 3PE
19 Feb 2014
Copy sent to SPFL CEO and Board Members *
Dear Mr McKenzie
We the contributors to The Scottish Football Monitoring web site write to you in your capacity as the legal adviser employed by Harper MacLeod to assist the Scottish Premier League (now the Scottish Professional Football League) to gather evidence and investigate the matter of incorrect player registrations involving concealed side letters and employee benefit trusts as defined in the eventual Lord Nimmo Smith Commission.
We note from the then SPL announcement that set up an enquiry that the initial date range to be covered was from the inception of the SPL in July 1998, but that was changed to 23 November 2000 because, according to our understanding, that is the date of the first side letter supplied by Rangers Administrators Duff and Phelps. It is also our understanding that the SPL asked for all documentation relating to side letters as well as the letters themselves.
It is a matter of public record that Rangers Administrators failed to supply the SPL all relevant documentation. Indeed the seriousness of not complying with SPL requests was the subject of an admonition of Rangers/Duff and Phelps from Lord Nimmo Smith under Issue 4 of his Commission.
Quite how serious that failure to comply or concealment was in terms of misleading the Commission and so Lord Nimmo Smith can now be assessed from the information contained at Annexes 1 to 10 attached.
We think that as legal advisers to the SPL (now the SPFL) you have a responsibility to make them aware that their Commission was misled by the concealment of documents starting on 3 September 1999, and signed by current SFA President Campbell Ogilvie, whose silence on the ebt matters referred to in the attached annexes* is questionable at the very least.
This letter but not attachments is being posted on The Scottish Football Monitor web site as this is matter for all of Scottish football and support for the issue being pursued to establish the truth can be gauged by responses from supporters from all Scottish clubs once the letter has been published there.
A copy of this letter with Annexes has also been sent to the SPFL CEO and members of the SPFL Board.
Acknowledgement of receipt and reply can be sent by e mail to:
(Address supplied)
Yours in sport

On behalf of The Scottish Football Monitor contributors and readers. http://www.tsfm.org.uk/

Addressees copied in
Neil Doncaster CEO
The Scottish Professional Football League
Hampden Park
Glasgow G42 9DE

Eric Riley (Celtic),
The Celtic Football Club
Celtic Park
Glasgow G40 3RE

Stephen Thompson (Dundee United),
Tannadice Park,
Tannadice Street,
Dundee, DD3 7JW

Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen);
Aberdeen Football Club plc
Pittodrie Stadium
Pittodrie Street
Aberdeen AB24 5QH

Les Gray (Hamilton),
Hamilton Academical FC
New Douglas Park
Hamilton
ML3 0FT

Mike Mulraney (Alloa)
Alloa Athletic FC
Clackmannan Road
Recreation Park
Alloa FK10 1RY

Bill Darroch (Stenhousemuir).
Stenhousemuir F.C.
Ochilview Park
Gladstone Road
Stenhousemuir
Falkirk
FK5 4QL

About the author

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

3,234 Comments so far

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:31 am - Mar 5, 2014


Absolutely right GJ. Well apart from the ~£26m debt problem, absolutely right. But its only a debt if they say so – and that’s kind of the point, no?

View Comment

Avatar

Greenock JackPosted on10:37 am - Mar 5, 2014


Eco & Smugas
For the avoidence of doubt, I’m not even remotely suggesting that everything is rosey in the garden. The “Green”er it is, the worse it will be for the club.

View Comment

Avatar

South0fThe BorderPosted on10:37 am - Mar 5, 2014


ecobhoy says: March 5, 2014 at 9:04 am

Even if they did submit documentation that the accounts didn’t need to be audited – they still have to submit unaudited accounts by the due date.

If they submit accounts with exemption from audit, they need to include the RIFC guarantee that of all of the debts of the subsidiary at the balance sheet date and that guarantee will remain in force until the liabilities are paid off.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on10:37 am - Mar 5, 2014


Greenock Jack says:
March 5, 2014 at 9:59 am

Brings us to the question of licensing, requirements and deadlines. Anyone know the facts of the matter?
=============================
All SPFL clubs supposedly have to submit accounts by 31 March 2014. The accounts required are the 2013 accounts. Surprisingly, perhaps, it is only at gold level where there must be no auditors’ qualification regarding “going concern”. So a company which the auditors refuse to certify as a going concern can get a silver license.

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on10:39 am - Mar 5, 2014


Greenock Jack says:
March 5, 2014 at 9:59 am
Neepheid
So as no forms are showing on the CH website we can take it that an exemption hasn’t been applied for. Unless there was a delay in this submission appearing.
TRFC accounts are therefore simply overdue and a late-filing penalty of 150 pounds sterling applies.
——————————————————————————————————————————
Companies House stated in an e-mail yesterday :

“THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED – SC425159
Thank you for your e-mail of 3 March 2014. You rightly state that the accounts of the above company are now overdue. These accounts should be made up to 30 June 2013 and should have been filed by 28 February 2014.

The Registrar of Companies has a pursuit process in place for ensuring that companies file outstanding documents. The above company has already been contacted regarding this issue.”

I cannot imagine that they would be contacting TRFC with regard to this matter if an exemption had been granted.

So a Government Agency in Companies House is stating categorically and publicly that TRFC have failed to file their annual accounts by the statutory deadline despite having nine months to so do. This also despite these accounts having been previously prepared and incorporated into the parent company accounts. The Directors of TRFC are thus in breach of their statutory duty.

MSM – why are you not asking loud and clear why these accounts have not been filed? What possible reason can there be?

SFA/SPFL – why are you not announcing that this has been brought to your attention and that you are taking action to ensure that another, new, club is not about to go into administration thus prejudicing the operation and finances of the League within which they play?

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:42 am - Mar 5, 2014


Eco,

In fairness I did describe my normal creditor assumption as “massive” and if recent events are anything to go by that’s almost certainly understating it!

Put yourself in King’s shoes in slightly different circumstances though. You want to buy the club (don’t start). You’ve got the nod from the sellers for £1 plus rent free for a wee while (disappointingly the stadium and training ground were non negotiable, not what SDM promised but you’re not speaking to him anyway). Doncaster and Ogilvie have welcomed you with open arms, probably even bought you lunch as they described how the whole fit and proper test and promoted newco issues had been dealt with. The prospectus are printed, the token stellar signing to burst the First Division lined up.

But you’re only 10 points clear and this insolvency event that this Irish bloke (who lets face it has history!) is trumpeting about almost certainly means no promotion, no play off. What are you going to do, walk away?

View Comment

Avatar

Greenock JackPosted on10:45 am - Mar 5, 2014


Neepheid
Can the club point towards the Group accounts regards audit sign-off? If they had applied for exemption then they would have needed to or would this preclude this option?

Gold/Silver license: Is this an SPFL thing ?

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:58 am - Mar 5, 2014


Gold or silver licenses – Who cares about the need for audited accounts?
We got someone to sew 5 stars on our shirts, WATP 😀

View Comment

Avatar

Greenock JackPosted on11:03 am - Mar 5, 2014


RedLitchie
Unless there is an SFA Licensing issue then there wouldn’t seem to be much of a problem from a CH viewpoint, ie. if you take the late-filing penalties as being proportionate to said view.

The accounts could still be overdue come the end of August and it appears the penalty would only be 1500 pounds sterling.
http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/companiesAct/ca_lateFilingPenalties.shtml

Personally, I’d like to see them filed so as they could be forensicly examined. In the hope that there would be information that might give the support a better idea of what has happened to the money.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on11:17 am - Mar 5, 2014


CanuckBhoy/Smugas

1. Limited owes PLC a lot of money (let’s assume it is £20m). PLC sells that debt to a BVI company – Rangers International Cash Holdings (“RICH”). PLC already knows that Limited cannot repay that £20m so PLC is prepared to discount the debt. That debt is sold by PLC to RICH for £15m. RICH is now the creditor in Limited. PLC now has £15m.

2. Limited goes into administration and immediately effects a pre-pack sale of its heritable assets for market value (say £20m) to PLC. That is payable as to £15m on day one and £5m over (lets say) 5 years. Leases are entered into between PLC and Limited to allow Limited to continue to use the heritable assets going forward. This provides an income stream for PLC for ever and it can use this income to pay the deferred consideration.

3. The administrators in Limited have £15m to play with immediately and £5m more to come. They have (say) £25m of creditors. (This is only the case however if they keep Limited going as a going concern. The amount of creditors would increase substantially on a break up.) The administrators in Limited propose a CVA whereby the £15m that they hold has to be distributed amongst ordinary creditors immediately (60p in the pound). The CVA also offers a further £4.5m over 5 years (that is a further 18p in the pound). The administrators keep £0.5m.

4. The CVA is approved because RICH (an unconnected party) itself holds 80% of the total creditor debt. Thereafter, the administrators distribute £12m of the £15m to RICH and £3m amongst the other creditors. A further £4.5m will be split in the same (80:20) ratio over the next 5 years. Total return to RICH is £15.6m over 5 years on a £15m investment. Other creditors get £3.9m in total. PLC gets the heritable assets and an income stream indefinitely.

5. The administrators sell the business and assets of Limited to whoever is daft enough to buy it (more return to creditors) or alternatively they hand the business back to the Directors at that point (who then trade on presumably on a much more realistic business model – but with additional lease costs) or perhaps the shares in Limited are sold by PLC (more return to PLC shareholders).

That would be one way to do it.

You can fiddle around with the numbers. The higher the deferred consideration compared to the amount RICH pays for the debt and therefore more rapacious the lease terms, the better the return to RICH and PLC and the more hamstrung the business of Limited becomes.

Easy 😉

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:17 am - Mar 5, 2014


The problem for T’Rangers is that, like the majority opinion in the FTTT, we can all focus in on individual trees such as the unfiled accounts and forget about the woods.
Regardless of what individual trees we focus on (and the squirrels within those trees) from day to day, the bigger picture is that the woods are in a perilous state because there are a significant number of rotten trees.
The question is can the current board deal with the spread of the rot?
120 days to decide what rotten trees to chop down and in the meantime only managing to chop off a few small branches, on the face of it, doesn’t seem like good forestry management.

I’ll leaf you with that thought for today.

View Comment

Avatar

stan freePosted on11:32 am - Mar 5, 2014


Off current thread topic I know but the following report is on the Beeb Scotland website –

“Aberdeen have sold more than 30,000 tickets for the Scottish League Cup final and the club is asking for more.
The game at Celtic Park in Glasgow against Inverness is on Sunday 16 March.
The club said sales so far had been at a “phenomenal” level, and it was now in talks with the SPFL about getting additional tickets.
A statement said if sales continued in a similar pattern this week there would be no general sale on Monday.
Season tickets holders and those with a buying history this season have been able to purchase final tickets so far.”

It certainly sounds like Armageddon (down to Glasgow a week on Sunday!)

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on11:38 am - Mar 5, 2014


Greenock Jack says:
March 5, 2014 at 10:45 am
2 1 Rate This

Neepheid
Can the club point towards the Group accounts regards audit sign-off? If they had applied for exemption then they would have needed to or would this preclude this option?

Gold/Silver license: Is this an SPFL thing ?
=======================
I believe that TRFC are the “operator” of the club, so it should be their own accounts, since it would be their license. However I am sure that if they just send in the RIFC accounts, then there won’t be a problem- at least while Ogilvie is in the president’s chair.

I think the whole precious metal thing is based on the UEFA model. There’s bronze and platinum too, plus “entry level”. I looked at this ages ago, and I seem to remember that the SFA Board can simply let a club play, even if it doesn’t qualify for a license. Or maybe just award a license even if the conditions aren’t met, I’ll look it up later if I get a chance.

If I’m right on that, then there’s no point anyone getting excited about TRFC not meeting the conditions for a license- they’ll just get one anyway. In my opinion. That’s the level of deep cynicism that the last two years have reduced me to.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:48 am - Mar 5, 2014


Campbellsmoney,

I hope you’re not suggesting the fans initial £5m placement is the bit the spivs now have to play with? 😉

You also forgot point six. Whoever is daft enough (your term, not mine) to buy the business and assets (the club 😉 😉 😉 😉 ) can either complete the deal now thus out of administration with a clear conscious (and 0 pts) on the spiv’s terms or defer, deflect and even write a particularly stroppy article in the Daily Record in which case its still a semi clear conscious and minus 15pts in a much tougher league. What if they hold out, withhold season ticket revenue and starve out the PLC? Well, apart from the continuing 2nd division football on a shoestring budget and the default irritancy clause on the lease being triggered (maybe not immediately acted on, but triggered) no I can’t see a downside at all!

as Archie (or was it Arthur?) used to say, OOooofft!

View Comment

Avatar

Bryce CurdyPosted on11:54 am - Mar 5, 2014


ECOBHOY 8:47 am

Thanks for your detailed reply. I know LNS went through the rule books, but the rule breaking he sought was in relation to player registration and eligibility, and not into illegal remuneration as he was operating with the premise that Rangers’ use of EBTs was legal as determined by the FTTT.

As for the SPL not revisiting, in the event of a decision in favour of HMRC they should be challenged to justify their position. I suspect the response would be no more refined than a simple ‘because’.

I will have read your previous posts about the LNS verdict along with others, but can’t recall specific details. I would agree that once Mackenzie failed to challenge the Bryson interpretation there was an inevitability about the outcome. There were two claims that LNS made that were not inevitable and do need challenged. Firstly the ‘no sporting advantage gained’ which he was not tasked to determine and secondly while recognising that the failure to disclose the EBTs was deliberate, somehow the panel in almost the same breath stated it was not dishonest. They were in on the whole thing in my opinion, although the cast was very large.

View Comment

Avatar

rougvielovesthejunglePosted on11:58 am - Mar 5, 2014


So a few minutes ago a former Aberdeen player comes into my shop and we exchange our usual fitba related banter.
He asks me if I’m going to the final and I tell him that hopefully I’ll pick up a pair of tickets in the general sale if there is one of course. Isn’t Armageddon wonderful Mr Regan?

Anyway, I turn the chat towards the Scottish Cup and speculate what sort of team Sevco will be able to put out in future round(s) following their forthcoming administration.
He looked astonished when I said this and he even said that he thought everything was “hunky dory” with the club currently playing out of Ibrox!

Just shows you I guess. People you assume would be in the know are clearly oblivious to the precarious state of Scotlands youngest senior football club!

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on12:09 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Smugas says:
March 5, 2014 at 11:48 am
1 0 i
Rate This

Campbellsmoney,

I hope you’re not suggesting the fans initial £5m placement is the bit the spivs now have to play with?

You also forgot point six. Whoever is daft enough (your term, not mine) to buy the business and assets (the club ) can either complete the deal now thus out of administration with a clear conscious (and 0 pts) on the spiv’s terms or defer, deflect and even write a particularly stroppy article in the Daily Record in which case its still a semi clear conscious and minus 15pts in a much tougher league. What if they hold out, withhold season ticket revenue and starve out the PLC? Well, apart from the continuing 2nd division football on a shoestring budget and the default irritancy clause on the lease being triggered (maybe not immediately acted on, but triggered) no I can’t see a downside at all!

as Archie (or was it Arthur?) used to say, OOooofft!

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Because the SPFL Rules and Articles now enshrine the idea of a club being separate from its owner and operator, and because of course a “club” can’t go into administration, we can have the idea of a club being sold by one owner to another. So, if the club is sold to a new owner (which is not in administration) immediately before the old owner goes into administration (as a result of all of the debts that it ran up running the club) – then no points penalty and much trumpeting about the fact that “the Club didn’t go into administration, as we told you all along”.

This would be the case even if the new owner and operator was a subsidiary of the same holding company as the previous owner and operator.

I would love to see them trying to even begin to think about working out how to start commencing a thought process that would allow them to get their heads round that on “Super” Scoreboard.

View Comment

wildwood

wildwoodPosted on12:13 pm - Mar 5, 2014


It’s a good point that roughvielovesthejungle brings up.

The unenlightened are many

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on12:19 pm - Mar 5, 2014


peterjung says:
March 5, 2014 at 10:56 am
5 1 Rate This

Ok… a little light relief for a moment…here are some selected highlights from last night’s Clyde SSB…what a hoot this lot are…
——–

Fun summary, Peter.

It had a bit of a mad hatters tea party about it, regarding the callers. But they were secondary to the guest, Brian Dempsey, who was hugely impressive. I know nothing of him but how well he spoke, also stretching out the hand of genuine sympathy to Ibrox fans. He certainly gave some very interesting details about the financial crisis at Celtic Park all those years ago. Pity someone came on with the explicit purpose of trying to discredit him — some people have become firm believers in the land-deal thingamabob. Very apparent last night what a successful distraction and deflection it’s become.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:21 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Campbellsmoney – gutted as I actually have to do some work now 😥 Will definitely pick up later on though – maybe after the administration announcement!

Can the existing company wot owns the club split the property assets and the…. the…., well, the crap assets basically, prior to an administration? Are you not then back in to preferential treatment come liquidation of the remaining shell? I’d have thought you’d have needed to go into administration to hide under the ‘best return for creditors’ blanket to effect the split you describe, no? In and out would seem safest all round IMalwaysHO.

View Comment

Avatar

James ForrestPosted on12:31 pm - Mar 5, 2014


neepheid:

Thanks for flagging my article this morning mate. Much appreciated.

When I started to write it last night I was thinking about the difference between strategy and tactics, and wanted to find a way to convey that to illuminate Fergus’ time at Celtic in comparison to King’s fly-by-night plan to “rebuild” Rangers with a one-off investment in the first team. But the more I thought about it, the more I realised that Murray wasn’t a strategist any more than King is.

That, of course, led me to a proper examination of Fergus’ time in charge. I am convinced he is one of the most far-sighted men in the history of the Scottish game, and as much in the shadow of Peter Lawwell are all those at Ibrox now, I think the wee man with the bunnet casts a longer, darker one, one that may even be the equal to that of Stein.

The lack of a clear-headed strategic thinker at Ibrox is so obvious I wonder how they will ever recover with the present scrabbling parties the only ones on the stage.

More than that though, I weep for what might have been had Fergus’ ambitions not been limited to the rebuilding of Celtic. In that task he excelled, and his legacy is the modern institution he left behind. I only wish he had chosen to fix Scottish football whilst he was at it, because the game would look very different today. He would have transformed it.

It is Celtic’s great fortune, and Scottish football’s lost opportunity.

Of course, the media would have fought him every step of the way. He wouldn’t have let it stop him.

http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-return-of-the-king/

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on12:36 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Smugas says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:21 pm

Can the existing company wot owns the club split the property assets and the…. the…., well, the crap assets basically, prior to an administration? Are you not then back in to preferential treatment come liquidation of the remaining shell? I’d have thought you’d have needed to go into administration to hide under the ‘best return for creditors’ blanket to effect the split you describe, no? In and out would seem safest all round IMalwaysHO.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Nah – what you definitely have to avoid in the run up to a liquidation is (i) unfair preference; and (ii) gratuitous alienation. If you can show market value – then (ii) is not a problem. The reason why, in my plan, there is not an unfair preference, whereas in the “shift the properties up in return for debt write off” plan there is an unfair preference, is that, in my plan, no creditor is preferred by anything TRFC does. Broadly speaking this is because TRFC receives cash (rather than a debt discharge).

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on12:39 pm - Mar 5, 2014


@peterjung

My post is worded a bit clumsily. Sorry. I was referring to some of the callers to the programme when I mentioned a mad hatters tea party, not to your summary 😳

View Comment

Avatar

Angus1983Posted on12:44 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Extract from a post on the RFC LSE site today (from a bloke evidently not enamoured of PMcG):

“PMG points out today that all the senior executives at Ibrox are now Laxey appointees (Nash is now company secretary) so there will be no opposition internally to The Laxey loan. PMG fails to mention in today’s blog that JJB Retail will deliver £1M this month as part of their merchandising deal. PMG knows this as I reminded him yesterday in my ‘moderated’ reply. RIFC were bankrupt. The loan bought them sufficient time to complete the ‘red herring’ 120 day review. PMG has not made any comment on Nash’s appointment being reported as company secretary of Sevco Scotland. Could this be a device to reinforce the position of Sevco Scotland and undermine Sevco 5088. PMG has also not picked up attempts by stakeholders within RIFC to close down RIFC subsidiary 5088. There is a lot of info available if you know where to look. PMG only looks one way!”

View Comment

peterjung

peterjungPosted on12:57 pm - Mar 5, 2014


DANISH PASTRY says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:39 pm
@peterjung
________________________________________
He, he , he….no worries…I got you loud and clear …
😆 😆 😆

View Comment

Avatar

beatipacificiscotiaPosted on1:09 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
March 5, 2014 at 12:19 pm

Mr Dempsey was hugely impressive last night – an intelligent, articulate man who clearly has a deep love for Celtic FC and is clearly a decent human being too. There was a clear message of respect, understanding and compassion that I found very touching. Give the episode a listen. He shares my view that our small country, less the sectarian hate, “this will be a hell of a place”.

A great man, shame not all the callers matched up.

View Comment

Avatar

bogsdolloxPosted on1:15 pm - Mar 5, 2014


beatipacificiscotia says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:09 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I too was thinking that and based on his experience at Celtic he provided some good advice to Rangers fans about how to take back the club. It’s a pity guys like him and Turnbull Hutton don’t run our game.

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on1:44 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:

March 5, 2014 at 11:17 am
Agreed
A query
In an earlier post I suggested TRFC may sell and lease back the assets to an offshore co and use the proceeds to pay off RIFC
Would this variant be legal also?

View Comment

Avatar

beatipacificiscotiaPosted on1:49 pm - Mar 5, 2014


bogsdollox says:

March 5, 2014 at 1:15 pm

4

0

Rate This

beatipacificiscotia says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:09 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I too was thinking that and based on his experience at Celtic he provided some good advice to Rangers fans about how to take back the club. It’s a pity guys like him and Turnbull Hutton don’t run our game.

___________________________

Agreed, he gave sound advice that the Rangers fans groups (and fans in general) would do very well to listen to.

One of my thoughts after listen – why do the Rangers fans groups not approach the Celts for Change people and ask for their advice? They have seen it and done it, and I hope they would be delighted to help.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on1:55 pm - Mar 5, 2014


GoosyGoosy says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:44 pm
0 0 i
Rate This

Campbellsmoney says:

March 5, 2014 at 11:17 am
Agreed
A query
In an earlier post I suggested TRFC may sell and lease back the assets to an offshore co and use the proceeds to pay off RIFC
Would this variant be legal also?

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Yes I can’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be legal (assuming proper price paid). My difficulty with that is – if I am a director of TRFC, why do I do that? How is that in the interests of TRFC? RIFC aren’t pursuing the debt so why am I selling assets to repay it. My (admittedly convoluted) plan avoids issues of directors duties being breached in TRFC.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on1:57 pm - Mar 5, 2014


http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=ODg0OQ==

Journalism at its finest, from our very own Daily Record.

“PUBLICATION: Daily Record

COMPLAINT:

Mr Craig Whyte complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, that the newspaper had published an article which inaccurately stated that a fan of Rangers Football Club had been thrown out of a supermarket after launching a “tirade of abuse” at him.
RESOLUTION:

The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the publication of the following correction and apology:

Following our article of December 27 2013 we would like to make clear that, contrary to our report, former Rangers owner Craig Whyte was not verbally abused while shopping in Tesco and nobody was thrown out of the store for doing so. We apologise for this error.
DATE PUBLISHED: 03/03/2014″

View Comment

Avatar

hamemadesoupPosted on3:22 pm - Mar 5, 2014


beatipacificiscotia says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:49 pm

One of my thoughts after listen – why do the Rangers fans groups not approach the Celts for Change people and ask for their advice? They have seen it and done it, and I hope they would be delighted to help
——————————————-

I admire your optimism. Sevco fans wouldn’t go and ask , you’re forgetting the WATP mentality . I would also be surprised if many Celtic fans would be too keen to participate , they have long memories . 😉

View Comment

Avatar

No1 BobPosted on3:33 pm - Mar 5, 2014


I see that the press are reporting that Dave King offered funding to the RIFC plc board few months ago but that the board have stated that no offer was received from Mr King.

Now, I may be wrong, but I’m sure that this is the same Dave King who was described by a judge in a South African court as a ‘glib and shameless liar’. The same court went on to say that the court had seen King testify for four days and “are unanimous in finding that he is a mendacious witness whose evidence should not be accepted on any issue unless it is support by documents and other objective evidence”.

Now who to believe?

Two bad lots I’d say.

View Comment

Avatar

andyPosted on3:47 pm - Mar 5, 2014


No1 Bob says:
March 5, 2014 at 3:33 pm
5 1 Rate This

I see that the press are reporting that Dave King offered funding to the RIFC plc board few months ago but that the board have stated that no offer was received from Mr King.

Now, I may be wrong, but I’m sure that this is the same Dave King who was described by a judge in a South African court as a ‘glib and shameless liar’. The same court went on to say that the court had seen King testify for four days and “are unanimous in finding that he is a mendacious witness whose evidence should not be accepted on any issue unless it is support by documents and other objective evidence”.

Now who to believe?

Two bad lots I’d say.

________________
poll from FF :mrgreen:

View Poll Results: Do you believe Sandy Easdale or Dave King?
Sandy Easdale 11 2.00%
Dave King 538 98.00%

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on4:14 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Where does this loan business leave Graham Wallace? Personally, his leadership on this has been a bit Craig Matherish:

[quote]Letham told the Rangers Standard: “I’m happy to replace Laxey’s loan, on condition it is cancelled, with no penalty to the club, and that any security over property offered to Laxey is also cancelled.

“I have offered the loan on the same terms but with the interest payable reduced from £150,000 to £75,000. It is my intention to convert this interest into shares.”[/quote]

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on4:18 pm - Mar 5, 2014


ecobhoy says:

March 5, 2014 at 8:47 am

The “Auldheid” approach came as a result of your persuasive arguments that convinced me of the futility of challenging the LNS Commission itself so there is no point revisiting your valuable work, but no harm reminding ourselves of how bizarre LNS is.

The aim is not to have LNS revisited, it is simply to have that Commission set aside with all the bizarre conclusions it reached that Scottish football wi8ll have to live with unless it is set aside.

If it never happened.

There was no Bryson interpretation (have the rules been changed to reflect it yet (HP – anyone) .

There was no bizarre “no sporting advantage” ruling . That will depend on the UTT and will need an answer anyway. If those ebts are irregular did spending money other clubs could not legally spend not of itself provide an advantage when signing a player of high proven quality?

No the aim is to discredit LNS totally as the sham it was from inception and clear the way for whatever the UTT tells us.

However the sham was enabled by concealment and silence and one man stayed silent. It is surely time that these questions that I read on Scotsfans4Change are answered.

http://scotfans4change.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/what-did-ogilvie-know/

If they do not prompt folk to keep demanding answers I don’t know what will.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on4:29 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Auldheid says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:18 pm
2 0 Rate This
————–

The next instance of retrospective punishment — viz a viz an ineligible player — will be a test case for The Bryson Doctrine.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on4:46 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Regarding Harper Macleod

Its a funny old thing isn’t it. At one point Harper Macleod (being Celtic’s lawyers) were very much in the sights of those who see only with blue eyes and later their role, in a matter that benefitted the club supported by those with blue eyes, is questioned.

Harper Macleod’s (and in particular Rod Mackenzie’s) role in all of this has been as legal agent for their client. Like all lawyers, they give advice to their client and (if the client has any sense) the client gives instructions to the lawyer based upon that advice. The lawyer is an agent for a principal (the client) – that is the way the legal system works – has done for hundreds of years.

I don’t think anyone should expect any response from Harper Macleod. Even if they wanted to respond, client confidentiality would forbid them from doing so (unless the client tells/allows them to respond). The lawyer/client confidentiallity thingy is a very important part of the rule of law. It is not going to be broken just because there may have been an injustice in Scottish Foortball.

At best I think Harper Macleod will receive the documents and forward them to the client. They may even do so without reviewing them. They may ask the client whether the client wants them to look at the documents and wants them to comment upon the documents. If the client says “no, no thanks” then Harper Macleod have nothing to do. Harper Macleod (or indeed any law firm) do not exist to ensure fairness in football any more than a criminal advocate exists to ensure that the truth comes out about her client. Lawyers act for clients and do the best they can for those clients (within the constraints of the law of course) (usually) (hopefully).

The LNS decision (like the FTT decision), as a matter of law, was utterly incomprehensible to me.

So please do not think that I do not support the intentions behind the approach. I do – I applaud them (and the author).

Oh and before I forget – well done the Dandy Dons fans – brilliant stuff. Hope the ICT fans can put up good numbers too.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on4:55 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:29 pm
1 0 i
Rate This

Auldheid says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:18 pm
2 0 Rate This
————–

The next instance of retrospective punishment — viz a viz an ineligible player — will be a test case for The Bryson Doctrine.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Given Celtic’s lead in the league and their solvency (land claims and dodgy Co-op loans notwithstanding 😉 ) (so no chance of a 15 point penalty there then) maybe for a laugh Celtic should field one or two (63 was it??????) ineligible players in the coming weeks.

View Comment

Avatar

Alan PricePosted on5:22 pm - Mar 5, 2014


beatipacificiscotia says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:49 pm

One of my thoughts after listening – why do the Rangers fans groups not approach the Celts for Change people and ask for their advice?
___________________________________________

Brian Dempsey’s comment that Rangers fans need to find someone to unite all the warring factions as a house divided against itself cannot prosper, was good advice.

The difficulty though, is in finding that sort of person.

None of the main players in this long running farce, past or present, has the credibility, standing, or trust of the fans to pull off such a move.

Just where is such a person to be found?

View Comment

Avatar

AquinasPosted on5:26 pm - Mar 5, 2014


    An open apology to TSFM & Hearts Supporters.

Firstly this is not in anyway an attempt to open the door to new post on the abuse of Neil Lennon by Aberdeen fans at Tynecastle, far from it.

Firstly I fired off a series of anti Hearts abuse, digging up unhealthy situations from the past that on reflection every football fan can do in seconds in this country, my remarks and ‘points’ made were spiteful, and totally uncalled for, my apologies firstly to Hearts fans especially those on this blog who make up valued contributions to this site, not exclusively but certainly a heavyweight Allyjambo, his response to my posts was measured and thoughtful and taken on board.

My comments were damaging to the ethos of TFSM, I can’t change this, but I can only applaud its intentions in bringing fans together to attempt to hold those to account that don’t play with a ‘full deck’.

Keep up the good work TSFM and keep up your honest fight to survive Hearts.

View Comment

Avatar

bad capt madmanPosted on5:47 pm - Mar 5, 2014


WOTTPI says at 11ish am..
Thanks for the tree pun. I made a trunk call earlier to check your views, but the advice was that you are barking, and that you should branch out.

Anyhoo, you made me snigger, thanks

View Comment

Avatar

beatipacificiscotiaPosted on5:55 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Alan Price says:
March 5, 2014 at 5:22 pm

Brian Dempsey’s comment that Rangers fans need to find someone to unite all the warring factions as a house divided against itself cannot prosper, was good advice.

The difficulty though, is in finding that sort of person.

None of the main players in this long running farce, past or present, has the credibility, standing, or trust of the fans to pull off such a move.

Just where is such a person to be found?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The only Rangers guy with any credibility for me is, sadly, John Brown. Whether he has the soft skills to pull something like that off, I don’t know. I like John Brown, but it is a poor reflection on the current cast and crew that I can’t think of a single person with fewer question marks.

View Comment

Avatar

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on6:07 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:29 pm
8 0 Rate This

Auldheid says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:18 pm
2 0 Rate This
————–

The next instance of retrospective punishment — viz a viz an ineligible player — will be a test case for The Bryson Doctrine.
========
Is any punishment not retrospective, as it is not given out at the time it happened?

View Comment

Avatar

thequayPosted on6:11 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Campbellsmoney @ 4.46

The logic of what you say seems to be that any follow-up comms should be to the client not the legals. That being so should this be stressed to potential correspondents on this site and twitter and steer them away from Harper Macleod ?

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on6:21 pm - Mar 5, 2014


bad capt madman says:
March 5, 2014 at 5:47 pm
2 0 Rate This

WOTTPI says at 11ish am..
Thanks for the tree pun. I made a trunk call earlier to check your views, but the advice was that you are barking, and that you should branch out.

Anyhoo, you made me snigger, thanks

Yew are Pining for a return of the fish puns, it’s as Plane as the Palm of my hand

View Comment

Avatar

auchinstarryPosted on6:23 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Aquinas @5:26pm
Bravo Sir/Madam. Its often difficult to apologise, but its always appreciated. We have all made rash statements when anger overcomes logic. Well done.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on6:27 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Campbellsmoney @ 12.36

But then why bother with admin at all? Hang on, isn’t that where we started? ARRGGHHH!

View Comment

Avatar

slimshady61Posted on6:28 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:14 pm
————————————–
Talk is cheap. Letham knows full well that the Laxey loan cannot be cancelled “with no penalty” – there will be either a fee for an abortive transaction if it hasn’t completed, or an early redemption fee.

Either way it will cost RIFC. And let’s face it, the annual interest rate of 15% offered by Letham isn’t exactly cheap, in fact I would call it very expensive relative to LIBOR and current base rates.

These “Rangers people” sure know how to milk the corpse.

54(%) to 0 (penalties)

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on6:30 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Aquinas says:

March 5, 2014 at 5:26 pm

Thank you on behalf of Hearts supporters who visit this blog. I do remember you posting something derogatory towards the Hearts, but to be honest can’t remember what you said. Much is said amongst fans that is often best left unsaid, but that’s part of the joys of football. It’s especially good when we can disagree without bad feeling remaining, and that is certainly true in this case. With you showing such good grace, and dare I say integrity, to come on after the event and apologise so fully, I certainly feel obliged to accept your apology, without reservation, though couldn’t speak for all Hearts supporters as that would be a bit presumptuous of me. Anyway, well done for coming back and raising it, takes a good man to apologise, especially when no advantage is gained by it.

I think I should point out, though, that it is undoubtedly Easyjambo who deserves the description ‘heavyweight’ as it is he, and not I, who posts much in the way of well researched information on here, while I merely comment on the good work of Easy and other genuine ‘heavyweights’.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on6:39 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Cam. I meant your post at 12.09 for the absence of doubt.

I never knew that distinction between cash and debt write off, at least I did, but had not appreciated its significance in this context. Intriguing.

Yes gratuitous alienation is a breeze. One set of assets previously sold low so uplift is easy to prove. As for the club part, well anyone might think they’d been deliberately losing money!

View Comment

Avatar

shooie 1967Posted on6:42 pm - Mar 5, 2014


If we were all like Brian Dempsey what a wonderfull world it would be.Brian for SFA ceo.

View Comment

Avatar

pau1mart1nPosted on6:50 pm - Mar 5, 2014


“If those ebts are irregular did spending money other clubs could not legally spend not of itself provide an advantage when signing a player of high proven quality?”

aye but the rest didny know that then, so they could’ve done the same an just no telt us aboot it, so still no sporting advantage (Sandy Bryson sometime 2014)

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:13 pm - Mar 5, 2014


beatipacificiscotia says:
March 5, 2014 at 1:49 pm

One of my thoughts after listen – why do the Rangers fans groups not approach the Celts for Change people and ask for their advice? They have seen it and done it, and I hope they would be delighted to help
==================================
Not much chance of that. Did they not say a few months back the term ‘Requisitioners’ was chosen as ‘Rebels’ is too Celtic sounding?

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on7:17 pm - Mar 5, 2014


nowoldandgrumpy says:
March 5, 2014 at 6:07 pm
3 0 Rate This

Danish Pastry says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:29 pm
8 0 Rate This

Auldheid says:
March 5, 2014 at 4:18 pm
2 0 Rate This
————–

The next instance of retrospective punishment — viz a viz an ineligible player — will be a test case for The Bryson Doctrine.
========
Is any punishment not retrospective, as it is not given out at the time it happened?
————-

I see what you mean, but aren’t the type of sanctions we’re discussing to do with a limited period in the not-so-recent past, and not something to be applied because of a player’s current status?

I used retrospective in the sense of clearing up past mistakes, righting previous wrongs — that were not addressed in another time period. That would be different from a video review of Charlie Adam’s stamp, which has given him a 3-match ban in the present but which did not nullify the actual result or ban him retroactively from that game.

I think most of us thought that, in retrospect, any punishment would be applied retroactively, to apply to the past.

I’m feeling semantically challenged, I better lie down 😀

View Comment

Avatar

parttimearabPosted on7:21 pm - Mar 5, 2014


More incoming from the king…

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/u/dave-king-i-wont-leave-scotland-until-i-come-up-with-a-game-plan-for-rangers-future.1394044604?

View Comment

Avatar

parttimearabPosted on7:34 pm - Mar 5, 2014


parttimearab says:
March 5, 2014 at 7:21 pm
More incoming from the king…

…..and I’ve just noticed that he’s taken to dropping cryptic hints that some Bloefeld type character is running things behind the scenes…

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/9197232/spfl-dave-king-doubts-former-chief-executive-charles-green-is-still-involved-with-rangers?

Its not Craig Whyte…but it might or might not be Charles Green….

View Comment

Bawsman

BawsmanPosted on7:40 pm - Mar 5, 2014


“after a turbulent time at the helm he stood down in August 2013 after selling his shareholding to current board member Sandy Easdale.”

Is there any proof of this share transaction?

View Comment

Avatar

iamacantPosted on7:49 pm - Mar 5, 2014


parttimearab says:
March 5, 2014 at 7:21 pm

“Then I will stay up in Scotland for as long as it takes until we have a definite game plan as to how we will go forward from there.”
——————————————————————————————————————————
Its the same line from Sky Sports interview but anyway, does DK know if he overstays his welcome, he will be subject to UK tax laws. 😯

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on8:09 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:

March 5, 2014 at 4:46 pm
==================
Indeed but the client got the papers as did the full SPFL Board. If the UTT finds for HMRC, are the SPFL going to say LNS prevents a revisit when everyone knows the SPL were not presented with evidence their lawyers instructed Rangers to provide?

Very damaging for the SPFL..

The SPFL were a bit muddied in their response to LNS, no official statement on behalf of the SPL was ever made.

If some at the SPL had concerns at LNS, and I believe some had, this gives them the opportunity to straighten out a judgement that harms the game. The game they depend on for a living.

Not everybody is corrupt. Good men have been given cause to think. It is over to them.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on8:19 pm - Mar 5, 2014


pau1mart1n says:

March 5, 2014 at 6:50 pm

8

0

Rate This

“If those ebts are irregular did spending money other clubs could not legally spend not of itself provide an advantage when signing a player of high proven quality?”

aye but the rest didny know that then, so they could’ve done the same an just no telt us aboot it, so still no sporting advantage (Sandy Bryson sometime 2014)
===================
Actually the rest did.

Or at least Celtic did with Juninho and their advice was this is dodgy , very dodgy do not touch, it is probably illegal. Rangers took the punt and it might be they got it wrong, so no winnings from a bad bet.

View Comment

Avatar

ratethisthenyabampotsPosted on8:32 pm - Mar 5, 2014


The Daily Record’s coverage of tonight’s game v Poland went well didn’t it? What in the name a the wee man are the SFA playing at? Who makes these decisions to allow this to happen? From being a pay as you go game to this. Time to get the national games on cooncil telly. Disgraceful.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on8:52 pm - Mar 5, 2014


ratethisthenyabampots says:

March 5, 2014 at 8:32 pm

They will learn. It is all about technolgy and what it costs to get it right.

That drops significantly year on year.

How long before DR show SPFL games live? Why not?

Paper is fairly redundant as a means of delivery news. In fact it no longer does. It delivers history.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on8:56 pm - Mar 5, 2014


By the time anyone gets to see this game via the Daily Ranger IT will be history.
Total fail, Ive got it on Polski TV no probs.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:05 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Auld heid

“How long before DR show SPFL games live? Why not?”

If you mean the top tier then I’d say at least 17 months yet, but that’s looking increasingly optimistic!

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on9:08 pm - Mar 5, 2014


IAMACANT says:
March 5, 2014 at 7:49 pm

does DK know if he overstays his welcome, he will be
subject to UK tax laws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe if ‘Rangers’ took a leaf out of the Rolling Stones tax avoidance handbook and went on tour for a year, Droopy * could visit them offshore.

* Have you seen the bags under the bold Davie’s eyes? Do SARS check them whenever he leaves the country?

Or perhaps if ‘Rangers’ was to spend a year dead for tax reasons (copyright acknowledged to Douglas Adams) the bold Davie could conduct his business through a medium?

PS Why isn’t the Scotland game on?

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on9:09 pm - Mar 5, 2014


ianagain says:
March 5, 2014 at 8:56 pm
1 0 Rate This

By the time anyone gets to see this game via the Daily Ranger IT will be history.
Total fail, Ive got it on Polski TV no probs.
———–

It is incredible that you can find this game online, not quite in pristine HD, but still. Polish commentators are a lively bunch, good crowd too, and what a stadium.

So if unofficial streaming sites can provide a link, why not the official sites?

This should be a live event on the youtube channel. Charge a modest price or use ads and make it free for view.

View Comment

cowanpete

cowanpetePosted on9:14 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Re Scotland game tonight:
Probably a reflection on how scunnered I am with scottish football right now, but even if it was live right now on Swiss TV and so only one press of the remote away, I’d probably not even press that button.
Respect to anyone on this blog who pays money to watch Our Country’s Football Team play live friendly football matches. It’s not you; it’s me.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on9:24 pm - Mar 5, 2014


cowanpete says:
March 5, 2014 at 9:14 pm
0 0 Rate This

Re Scotland game tonight:
Probably a reflection on how scunnered I am with scottish football right now, but even if it was live right now on Swiss TV and so only one press of the remote away, I’d probably not even press that button.
Respect to anyone on this blog who pays money to watch Our Country’s Football Team play live friendly football matches. It’s not you; it’s me.
———

The national team have always been number 1 for me, far ahead of club football. They deserve our sympathy — being run by the SFA can hardly be described as constituting any kind of sporting advantage 🙂

You just missed a cracking goal btw. Scott Brown screamer. Poles were ahead ‘on points’ but the Scots are playing a kind of Italian football, though with no drama-queen theatrics (from either team).

View Comment

Avatar

ratethisthenyabampotsPosted on9:38 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Credit where it’s due for the 2nd half broadcast. Well done eventually. Still inexcusable.

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on9:45 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Ah… I’m beginning to understand Coisty’s panic at not being able to secure a top flight berth in double quick time.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/uefa-offer-celtic-hope-over-moving-to-england-1-3329021

PS For the record, I have oft voiced my concerns about Celtic moving to the EPL. It is a house of cards.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on9:46 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Scott Browns goal was a cracker. it’s very difficult to belt it like that and keep the foot down and not back row it. Class.

View Comment

Avatar

Bryce CurdyPosted on9:59 pm - Mar 5, 2014


AQUINAS 5:26 pm

Great post. I don’t understand the five ‘see you next Tuesdays’ who thumbs downed you.

PS. I was your first TU.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on10:01 pm - Mar 5, 2014


Danish Pastry says:

March 5, 2014 at 9:09 pm

2

0

Rate This

ianagain says:
March 5, 2014 at 8:56 pm
1 0 Rate This

By the time anyone gets to see this game via the Daily Ranger IT will be history.
Total fail, Ive got it on Polski TV no probs.
———–

It is incredible that you can find this game online, not quite in pristine HD, but still. Polish commentators are a lively bunch, good crowd too, and what a stadium.

So if unofficial streaming sites can provide a link, why not the official sites?

This should be a live event on the youtube channel. Charge a modest price or use ads and make it free for view.
================
Contention.

Lots of folks going to the main spring to drink and fighting to get their mouths under the fountain, but one small stream drawing on the same spring is feeding a few sneaky bassas behind a boulder .

Open up the main spring and nobody needs to be sneaky. 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

Bryce CurdyPosted on10:13 pm - Mar 5, 2014


AULDHEID 8:09 pm

But the problem is everyone doesn’t know. You know, I know, Campbellsmoney knows, and the vast majority of TSFM followers know, but your average punter simply does not know. There are simply too many vested interests and agendas, and even putting that to the side, the narrative is complex. I have read your letter and all the attachments and would be completely won over if somehow I wasn’t already, but I am the converted.

View Comment

Comments are closed.