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

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.
Tom Byrne

About Trisidium

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 thoughts on “Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?


  1. ianagain says:
    March 2, 2014 at 11:04 pm

    ==========================================================================
    was sent occasionally there to pick up Sulphuric and I think Hydrochloric acids in big bottles …

    ________________________________

    Those bottles are called ‘Winchesters’ btw….
    The ‘straw’ was probably Chemsorb or similar (non reactive packing sorbent material made from treated volcanic rock.)
    If you spilt conc sulphuric acid on dry straw it would catch fire pretty much immediately.
    Whereas if you spilt conc sulphuric acid on wet straw, it would react very violently and spit hot corrosive acid in all directions. Then it would catch fire.


  2. Have added new post entitled UTT thread and I’ve moved posts by UTT attenders to there. If I have missed any, please let me know.
    We want to showcase the words of our TSFM reporters, so far John Clarke, easyJambo and Jean7Brodie. Especially in this case, because it appears that we have the only presence there – and already our budding hacks have earned praise both here and on other social media sites. We want to just stick to the facts on the thread.

    If you are at the UTT, please post any information on the UTT thread. Please don’t post on it unless you were actually there.

    Comments on the posts in the UTT thread should be addressed to the main blog.


  3. Para Handy says:
    March 2, 2014 at 11:21 am

    Talk of Clubs leaving Scottish football to play in the EPL always amuses me. Supporters of the Clubs concerned focus on how it would improve Scottish football because those left would be capable of winning the domestic competition with all that entails.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    To my mind its about Scottish football fans leaving Scottish football to support in the EPL via the pub/armchair. I’ve never met so many people recently who “don’t bother with the Scottish game but “follow” Chelsea/Man U/Liverpool etc”


  4. borussiabeefburg says:

    March 2, 2014 at 9:43 pm

    To Auldheid’s letter: I wondered about the annexes not being freely shown along with the letter, which is a wonderful dispatch. Am I correct in understanding that the ownership of the annexes and how they have come to be in the public domain, has led to this restriction? This notwithstanding the fact that they are in easy reach of us all.
    ===================================
    Yup that was the main reason although the judgement in the Collymer Bristow case to allow CF material makes it less of a risk. However given the letter went to lawyers not publishing the evidence on TSFM reduced the risk of TSFM being closed down, although malicious serendipity almost saw to that.

    However as Easy Jambo and the Huddleboard have shown the material is available in other places . The question now is what viewers make of what was concealed from H&M and is it enough to suggest LNS needs to be set aside, until the UTT at least then revisited in light of what that says about btc ebts.

    It would be useful to get as much comment as possible in order to influence the next step, whilst appreciating events on the south side might be more interesting..


  5. easyJambo says:

    March 2, 2014 at 9:09 pm

    11

    0

    Rate This

    Auldheid says: March 2, 2014 at 7:23 pm
    ————————————
    I retained a copy of the DOS documents and correspondence with HMRC when they were first published online. I’ve uploaded them to Scribd and they appear to be much more readable.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/210130622/2011-03-23-Rangers-DOS-Docs

    The two Campbell Ogilvie documents (letter and Board minutes are available from Imgur.
    http://i.imgur.com/q88NFQq.jpg
    http://i.imgur.com/ytPbuSp.jpg
    ================
    May you bathe in the light of one thousand splendid suns for as many days. 🙂


  6. Auldheid says:
    March 3, 2014 at 1:37 am
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The highly contrived DOS scheme promoted by HLB Kidsons must have been blessed by Tax Counsel? Any idea who?

    The problem with this scheme was that Rangers varied the scheme’s implementation (with side letters) which then meant it’s tax avoidance potential was lost.

    Is this not what they did also with the EBT schemes being heard at the UTT in Embra? They side letters may have tripped them up again.

    Why would up front player contracts ever need side letters? Why is it not in the main contract?


  7. Auldheid – have you contacted @alextomo to see if he is interested in the story.

    The possible administration of Rangers this week could be a smoke screen to a bigger story, perhaps, about another administrator?


  8. Disagree re CO. He’d be dumped by the clumpany quicker than a shedload of overpaid players if it suited them. Yes he’ll know where all the skeletons are but would he be prepared to divulge? Doubt it. The very reason he should have been out on his proverbial on day one. Whether he was conflicted or not the very perception should have been enough. Put it this way, had it been Romanov funded hearts that ‘competitively in a sporting sense’ cheated rangers out of titles would the ex hearts man still be in place?


  9. Long Time Lurker says:

    March 2, 2014 at 10:45 pm

    26

    0

    Rate This

    Admin this week or no admin this week?

    @Alextomo has in my opinion raised the bar insofar that it sounds credible, and more likely than not that Rangers have been working to find an administrator.

    He also nailed his colours to the mast by using the tag #C4news to one of his tweets on the topic. That’s quite a statement to make.

    The fact that he has reported that Rangers are actively seeking an administrator in my view is a game changer. If administration was not going to be this week, why now delay that event.

    It will be interesting to see (a) if any statements are made to the stock exchange tomorrow morning and (b) will Imran Ahmad go back to Court tomorrow to try and secure monies to support his claim?
    ————————————————————————————————————————————–
    I have been firmly in the the prepack admin camp for months and I am still there. My slight concern reading Phil and Alex Thomos comments was about Wallace alledgedly visiting a couple of potential administrators. Prepacks are not beauty parades…….your administrator will be someone you trust and have a connection with, you do not interview them unless of course, Wallace is trying to make the processlook fair.


  10. 100BJD says
    Prepacks are not beauty parades…….your administrator will be someone you trust and have a connection with, you do not interview them unless of course, Wallace is trying to make the processlook fair.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
    That’s right – the directors/shareholders/others???? who are promoting any pre-pack admin will want to make sure that any administrator they appoint has bought into the plan and is prepared to carry it out (which should mean that the administrator believes it can be justified in terms of the Insolvency Act).

    However the timings here don’t sit easily with me.

    If I was going to put a company into administration this Wednesday to do a pre-pack sale (which would also happen on Wednesday or possibly very shortly thereafter) – I wouldn’t have been looking for an administrator just last week. I would have had one in place for months. Pre-packs take a bit of planning and the administrator would have to be onside and inside that planning.

    What would interest me in the context of the identity of any administrator here would be

    – is it a Big Four Firm (it can’t be Deloittes as auditors) – so is it EY, PwC or KPMG. They get many (but by no means all) of the high-profile jobs.

    – is it a firm in the next tier (there are lots of these -e.g. Grant Thornton (auditors of oldco), Zolfo Cooper, Mazars, BDO (can’t be them I think for all sorts of reasons))

    – is it someone plucked from south of the border (who might have connections with the likes of Zeus/Laxey or whatever which Scottish insolvency people are unlikely to have)?

    If its not at least a second tier firm and/or if its an English firm – that would interest me.


  11. BigGav and HirsutePursuit – I see you two have been advancing the discussions about prohibited names. Cheers and thanks.

    Hopefully I will be able to post some further comments later about s216 and the King who would be The Man.


  12. Campbellsmoney says:

    March 3, 2014 at 9:18 am

    Do you think cost would be the major factor in deciding on an administrator? I’d expect in a prepack admin that all the costs would have to be borne by whatever comes out the other side. Would the fees vary by large amounts between the various tiers of insolvency practitioners, I suspect they will, and will that be a prohibitive cost for TRFC/RIFC?

    In your opinion, does the chance of a successful prepack become less likely with a reduction in the expertise of the administrator? Or is it a case of it becoming more likely with a reduction in the morals/integrity of the practitioner?


  13. Surely a prepack would involve ‘selling’ to a new company. That is not what they want. They want TRFC Ltd to enter administration, shed its responsibilities to employees and its debt by CVA (and the majority of the debt is to RIFC Plc) and exit the other side clean, but the same company??


  14. Allyjambo/Scottc

    I was responding to 100BJD’s comment about pre-packs – not suggesting that that was what the current plan might be.

    Previously – weeks ago – I posted that if it were me and I were interested in saving the business, I might be advising the board to do a pre-pack sale out of liquidation -not administration – to avoid TUPE issues and take advantage of new Article 36 by getting advance clearance from my pals at SPFL and SFA to make sure that the newco that bought the business in the pre-pack would still be playing up a division next year. However it has not been clear to me that the objectives of those who control the two companies are the same as the objectives held by most business owners who end up doing pre-packs.

    Allyjambo asked – “In your opinion, does the chance of a successful prepack become less likely with a reduction in the expertise of the administrator? Or is it a case of it becoming more likely with a reduction in the morals/integrity of the practitioner?”

    Wow – what a question. Don’t know how to answer that really. What do you mean by “successful?”.

    The higher the expertise of the administrator, the higher the chance of the intended outcome (in any insolvency) being achieved. The lower the integrity/moral standard of the administrator, the higher the chance that the outcome will not necessarily be in the interests of the creditors as a whole, I suppose.

    The costs (and by this I mean the legal and advisory costs – not the purchase price) of a pre-pack are met by the purchaser and the seller. In the case of the seller of course that ultimately means the creditors as the amount that goes back to them will be the price less expenses.


  15. So it looks like a case of here we go again. Hopefully, the Football Authorities will behave with more integrity than they did the last time. Although, given that it is the same bums, (on different seats), my confidence level is zero.

    GJ

    Whether Scottish Football needs a “Strong Rangers” or not is a moot point. Mr King has made it clear that they need a Sugar Daddy, he has also made it abundantly clear it won’t be him. The ever changing line up of Blue Knights have demonstrated time and again that they are the Hungry Hogarths of Scottish Football, “Baron by Name. Barren by bloody nature” If and when Rangers make it into the SPFL, they will at best, be on a par with Hibs, Dundee United & Aberdeen. Given the size of the support, there is the potential for progression, but without a cultural revolution within Ibrox, that potential can never be realised. Even with a cultural revolution, it will take years, do the Rangers fans have the patience? Time will tell.


  16. Campbellsmoney

    Firstly I query if there would be appetitie for a second liquidation regardless of its merits. I’m sure even Walter has his limits plus if you’re truely shafting someone, as they would be all the players its a good idea to have a fairly clean recent history and fairly level carpets, neither of which are exactly commonplace at present (I feel for the cleaners I really do, they must have lift passes!).

    Your correct on the pre pack position being essentially a deal between between pre aligned purchaser and seller. I’m not convinced in this case you have a willing seller (certainly not of all of it and are they all in agreement which parts they’re keeping, and why?) and I’m not convinced you even have a willing purchaser but rather one whom is clear what he wants to purchase and will certainly have the power to influence the revenue streams if the deal falls through.

    .


  17. Maybe I missed it but has anyone ever said how much Dave King is worth and how much,SA currency laws etc,he could move from SA.How much liquid assets does he actually have?.


  18. The vehemence of Irvine’s denial and Wallace’s previous assurances does make me wonder if administration is quite so imminent, but it appears inevitable eventually.

    So we come to timing. Having read through the SPFL insolvency rules, points deductions are applied immediately if the event occurs within the current season, but applied to next season if the event occurs after the end of the season. (BTW, I can’t find a definition of when the seasons ends: is it before or after the play-offs?)

    This contrasts somewhat with the rules down south. If you have an insolvency event before the fourth Thursday in March then the points deduction is applied immediately. If the event occurs in the close season, the deduction is applied to the following season. In between these dates, the timing of the deduction depends on where you finish. If you were getting relegated anyway, the penalty is applied to the following season. If you finish outside the relegation places, the penalty is applied in the current season (which could of course cause you to be relegated).

    The purpose of the rules is to prevent “convenient” administrations, but confusingly it only applies to relegation and not promotion. It is preposterous to me that you can be promoted in England or Scotland despite having become insolvent. Relegation should be the penalty really, but I can appreciate how this is difficult to implement. What would happen if a team went into admin in September? They would have to play an entire season of meaningless fixtures. Probably the points deduction just needs to be more onerous (especially in England).


  19. Campbellsmoney says:

    March 3, 2014 at 9:59 am

    Thanks for your response, Campbell. For most of us the only experience we’ve had of following an insolvency event was, of course, RFC’s and that, I believe, was far from the norm. It appeared to originally have been planned as a prepack liquidation but, for whatever reason, became a full blown one. It seemed to suggest to me that a prepack can go wrong, even if planned for weeks/months, and may well come down to the expertise of the practitioners. Duff and Phelps appeared far from ‘expert’ and not of the highest integrity which led to my question along those lines. Only time will tell, I suppose 🙂


  20. What I believe give the Alex Thomson story credence is the bigger story, namely the now overdue accounts of the trading company, without which ultimately TRFC cannot continue to ply its trade in the SPFL.

    This company has been in business since May 2012, its initial accounting period ended on 30 June 2013, some 246 days ago. Its parent company accounts to 30 Jun 2013 have already been filed.

    The only conceivable reason why these accounts remain outstanding is because the auditors want to qualify them for going concern purposes and the directors do not. That is an impasse that has to be broken somehow and it seems to me that the only way to do that is to put TRFC into administration, cut the ruinous continuing costs (allyvederci?) and start afresh.

    So the overarching story is that TRFC cannot continue, ergo pre-pack is inevitable. The timing of Dave King’s statements could only be for one reason – he knows what is about to happen and he wants to make a play to disrupt the pre-pack narrative.

    My view is that Thomson is on the money and surprisingly some of those whom I thought would also be on the money are behind the curve.

    To answer Campbellsmoney, any administrator will be from south of the border, Big 4 or not. No-one up here wants to touch it with a bargepole. Blair Nimmo’s experience with Airdrieonians, when fans picketed Blythswood Square, tells the story.

    So follow the accounts because they tell the story – no accounts, no company, no company no clumpany, no clumpany, no club, no club……

    The story of where the money all went since December 2012 is a darkish secret that many will ensure can never see the light of day.


  21. torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
    March 3, 2014 at 10:40 am
    0 0 Rate This

    Maybe I missed it but has anyone ever said how much Dave King is worth and how much,SA currency laws etc,he could move from SA.How much liquid assets does he actually have?.
    ================
    SA has strict exchange control, so King couldn’t get much out of there in his own name. However I would be astonished if he hasn’t got a nest egg parked offshore somewhere. His problem is that if he invests a large amount in Rangers again, the SA tax authorities will be asking some very pointed questions as to where the money came from, and if the source wasn’t declared in the course of the previous investigation and court case, then King will be in very big trouble indeed. So having the money, and being able to spend it on his beloved Rangers, may be very different things.

    On another subject, I’m astonished that there has been no official response on AIM to yesterdays allegations. I don’t count Irvine’s briefings on twitter and elsewhere as “official” by the way. How can the company possibly not respond via an AIM announcement? Someone credible is saying that the trading company is going into administration this week, and the shareholders get no statement from the Board? Astonishing.


  22. torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
    March 3, 2014 at 10:40 am
    ——————————————-
    “maybe I missed it…” – hah, great line TJB. No you didn’t miss it because it was never published. His wealth is unknown other than he’s fabulously wealthy, but apart from that, what is known is
    1) his wealth has shrunk by a third in the last 6 months due to the strength of the pound v the rand
    2) the liquidity is very uncertain
    3) if he brought it into the UK, he would need to document the provenance of every last penny, and vouch for that
    4) S Africa has fairly rigorous exchange controls and any payments to the UK would need to be authorised (assuming his wealth is all in SA and not somewhere else, e.g.a tax haven).
    5) there are tax risks with bringing money into the UK
    6) there are commercial risks investing in football clubs, especially those prone to go bust from time to time.

    54 (rand) to (£) 0


  23. Smugas says:
    March 3, 2014 at 10:38 am
    0 0 i
    Rate This

    Campbellsmoney

    Firstly I query if there would be appetitie for a second liquidation regardless of its merits. I’m sure even Walter has his limits plus if you’re truely shafting someone, as they would be all the players its a good idea to have a fairly clean recent history and fairly level carpets, neither of which are exactly commonplace at present (I feel for the cleaners I really do, they must have lift passes!).

    Your correct on the pre pack position being essentially a deal between between pre aligned purchaser and seller. I’m not convinced in this case you have a willing seller (certainly not of all of it and are they all in agreement which parts they’re keeping, and why?) and I’m not convinced you even have a willing purchaser but rather one whom is clear what he wants to purchase and will certainly have the power to influence the revenue streams if the deal falls through.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

    Smugas – hello again. 😀

    WRT liquidation – I agree with what you say. If I wanted to get the footballing business away from its debts (and to hell with any other consequences (for directors/creditors/shareholders whoever) and playing football again then a pre-pack liquidation sale was a way to do it. However I agree – the consequences, for those involved, in a liquidation (compared to an admin and CVA) are pretty scary (remember HMRC’s comment about not wanting a CVA in Oldco to go ahead because a liquidation would permit of a full investigation into Oldco’s “history)”.

    What I haven’t been able to work out is (other than the accumulation of as much money as soon as possible) what are they (whoever “they” really are) really up to at any given time ?

    I am coming round to the “two camps inside” school of thought. The camps being – (a) people who want to do the right thing for Rangers (although what they might mean by “the right thing” may not be what the Insolvency Act and football fans might view as the “right thing”) and (b) those who care about nothing other than the money.

    The people in camp (a) are there because the people on camp (b) have put them in (probably because they need “reasonably acceptable” faces to front it). The extent to which those in camp (a) are reluctant to do or are prepared to do what those in camp (b) require them to do is I think the dynamic we see on a daily basis. And now of course we have Camp David as well. 😎


  24. From Bartin on twitter-

    Jelly Bart ‏@JellyBart 20m
    RT @funatthetop Registers of Scotland received Standard Security over Edmiston House to Easdale on Friday. Laxey for the Albion car park.


  25. Allyjambo says:
    March 3, 2014 at 10:50 am
    1 0 i
    Rate This

    Campbellsmoney says:

    March 3, 2014 at 9:59 am

    Thanks for your response, Campbell. For most of us the only experience we’ve had of following an insolvency event was, of course, RFC’s and that, I believe, was far from the norm. It appeared to originally have been planned as a prepack liquidation but, for whatever reason, became a full blown one. It seemed to suggest to me that a prepack can go wrong, even if planned for weeks/months, and may well come down to the expertise of the practitioners. Duff and Phelps appeared far from ‘expert’ and not of the highest integrity which led to my question along those lines. Only time will tell, I suppose

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
    My bet is it went wrong when HMRC forced the admin to take place on Feb 14 and not some weeks later.


  26. Slim,

    I’m intrigued. “Where the money went since December 12.” If non reporting is the goal then that could only be one of three places without naming names which isn’t really my intention anyway.

    Straightforward ‘rape and pillage.’ Massive charges. Minimal Input. Original, suitably anonymous management have no intention of continuing anyway (or do they? how far back are we talking 😉 ) so don’t see the big deal here.

    Investor repayment. Turns out the £22m in was actually a bridging loan and £17m of it has been effectively returned through fair means or foul. So just the fans £5m has been blown on the third and fourth divisions. (thats very rough arithmetic but you get the pcture). The only problem I can see with disclosing this would be if it was perceived that one of the investors that was repaid had no business being – a season ticket loan company for instance?

    In both these scenarios the underlying RFC model is actually in better health than we are giving it credit for. As a bear I wouldn’t actually be too disappointed with either of these with my forward thinking “back to where we belong” hat on.

    Final scenario is the most obvious one – that the assets are already elsewhere, are going elsewhere or in fact never arrived in the first place (ask J Brown for details). ConfessI can’t recall how the assets were accounted for in the parent group accounts. Problem with this latter option is that a/ obviously the assets are elsewhere and b/ the clumpany could indeed be losing what was it 12 * 714,000 per annum and that’s before a rental charge is applied.

    There’s bad news, and there’s really bad news.


  27. Campbellsmoney says:

    March 3, 2014 at 9:18 am

    7

    0

    Rate This

    100BJD says
    Prepacks are not beauty parades…….your administrator will be someone you trust and have a connection with, you do not interview them unless of course, Wallace is trying to make the processlook fair.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
    That’s right – the directors/shareholders/others???? who are promoting any pre-pack admin will want to make sure that any administrator they appoint has bought into the plan and is prepared to carry it out (which should mean that the administrator believes it can be justified in terms of the Insolvency Act).
    —————————————————————————————————————————————

    Rushing between meetings… Yes I totally agree with you regarding the timings. This type of deal needs/needed time to organise. Laxeys will be driving things so I would expect an English firm. If I had time I would have a look at some of their deal history and make an educated guess. We will see……sorry rushing!


  28. Campbellsmoney says:

    March 3, 2014 at 11:06 am

    The thing is, HMRC’s response was surely foreseeable, and either they shouldn’t have even considered a prepack, because it would inevitably fail, or they slipped up thinking they could do it before HMRC could act. The knowledgeable posters on RTC considered, prior to the administration, that the prepack would be announced and completed within one day and would pre-empt anything any creditor could do, whether that was correct or not, things didn’t appear to work out as planned, though who knows as nothing in this saga makes much sense, even after the event. My timing of weeks/months in my previous post referred to the planning and preparation time up to the announcement as opposed to the time it took for it all to go pear shaped once administration was announced.


  29. I’m with Slimshady61 in that the lack of accounts for TRFC is an issue.
    If you don’t want people sniffing around your business you keep the taxman on side and file accounts when required..

    Long time ago GoosyGoosy’s mantra was that Spivs involved in an asset strip type operation never file accounts.

    It all smells very fishy.

    The issue is that if you are sitting at Ibrox trying to do a good job and believe you do have the club and company heading in the right direction, then surely you come out fighting to quash all these rumours and back it up with a few hard facts that you can, within the SE/AIM rules, issue to the public.

    Is anyone surprised that, given the silence and lack of accounts, people are talking?


  30. torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
    March 3, 2014 at 10:40 am
    slimshady61 says:
    March 3, 2014 at 11:01 am

    http://www.iol.co.za/business/companies/micromega-ticks-off-all-conditions-of-nosa-deal-1.1637807#.UxRn4ZXiu14

    “A specific requirement of this settlement was that Mr King’s family repatriate business assets that have been held overseas into South Africa”

    Given that the glib and shameless liar is having to bring his overseas assets back to SA as part of his agreement to avoid jail time I cannot see any possibility of him investing large sums in ‘the mighty Gers’ anytime soon.


  31. AJ

    I would say, purely from the clubs perspective, that it worked out pretty well apart from a minor slippage vis a vis the pre agreed SPL continuation and in the ensuing mess, again from a footballing perspective – remember the business angle was always crystal clear ref millar’s black hole – they allowed both jackals in the door for quick profit and double dealing and a more sinister presence who, shock horror, may not have had the best interests of the football club at heart.


  32. Neepheid,Slimshady,No1Bob.
    Thanks for the info.Mr King looks like he’ll turn out like McColl et al.all rhetoric and very little substance but he’ll still be put forward as a saviour.
    I asked a question the MSM won’t(you can use that TSFM 😉 )


  33. The admin and liq of Rangers in 2012 was geared at shedding the tax debt.
    (IMO the WTC wasnt paid because the main players in this saga are morally opposed to paying taxes).
    Liq was the option because the tax debt to overall debt value ratio was too high. It was known that HMRC would not yes a CVA.

    This time with this Rangers things are different. A CVA could be doable and debt shed again.
    but, I still think that the main players simply do not believe in paying their fair taxes. I would not be surprised, when an insolvency occurs (soon if reports are to be believed), to read of more tax debts, but at a lesser ratio to overall debt.


  34. McMurdo minor spinning the “securing” of Albion car park & Edmiston House as a poison pill designed to protect Rangers from Mr King’s 5,000 strong “Barmy Army!

    Smugas

    My favorite Sci Fi show is Babylon 5, the key plot event is when Intergalactic Spiv, Mr Morden, asks The Centari Ambassador. Londo, “What do you want?” “I want it all back” says the gallous Londo. For a while “The Journey” goes well for Londo, he even becomes Emperor. Unfortunately, by the time he becomes Emperor, Mr Morden’s actions have resulted in Londo’s planet becoming a smoking ruin.
    Can’t think why that came to mind 😉


  35. Y4RMY

    “Season means the period of the year commencing on the date of the first League Match in a Season and ending on the date of the last League Match in the same Season or otherwise as determined by the Board and which excludes the Close Season”; (Page 16 of the SPFL Rules and Articles)


  36. Allyjambo says:
    March 3, 2014 at 11:24 am
    1 0 i
    Rate This

    Campbellsmoney says:

    March 3, 2014 at 11:06 am

    The thing is, HMRC’s response was surely foreseeable, and either they shouldn’t have even considered a prepack, because it would inevitably fail, or they slipped up thinking they could do it before HMRC could act. The knowledgeable posters on RTC considered, prior to the administration, that the prepack would be announced and completed within one day and would pre-empt anything any creditor could do, whether that was correct or not, things didn’t appear to work out as planned, though who knows as nothing in this saga makes much sense, even after the event. My timing of weeks/months in my previous post referred to the planning and preparation time up to the announcement as opposed to the time it took for it all to go pear shaped once administration was announced.

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

    I don’t think that HMRC’s actions on Feb 14 were forseeable (or rather – I dont think that they were forseen). I am not aware of HMRC ever having taken that step before – others might have seen it but if so it is extremely rare and of course there are lots of companies that go bust owing lots to HMRC with, dare I say it, even worse HMRC “records”.

    I do not think that there was any reason for any of the players to believe that, having filed the notice of intention (“NOI”) to appoint on Feb 13, they did not then have (at least) two weeks (being 10 Business Days) and possibly a month (if they then filed another NOI) to fiddle about before they had to actually make an admin appointment.


  37. Someone’s not happy:
    @FOOTYnewsSKY: Rangers forward Andrew Little has called on the club to sort out his contract situation or risk seeing him leave. http://t.co/krnRZfALlW


  38. Scapa,

    Precisely. Well as precise as Sci Fi can be! as Campbellsmoney said above there are at least three camps at play – the football camp (who bizarrely have spent the crown jewels and now having done so are asking for a shot again but this time with no cash!?! Blue no understandez – this Wallace man speaketh with forked tongue), the property camp who have an obvious short game which would be unpopular, or a long term dripping roast if they wish (requiring camp football to succeed of course) and the third Camp David ((c) CM) most akin to a ship load of vikings off the shore – you’ve no idea of their intentions but your gut reaction is they don’t have a ‘fair trade’ badge on their swords.

    Each camp requires to give up ground hence my reference earlier to the classic Prisoners Dilemma. But to what extent each camp is prepared to invoke a scorched earth policy? Interesting twist.

    You genuinely wonder if an SFA guideline along the lines of have another year in your current division to sort it out amongst yourselves would be merited. But no, because a revenge motivated brigand in parlous state mounting a challenge in the lower tier of full time football to sell a tv deal is so much better apparently!

    Doncaster, you’re more a one trick pony than a one hoofed juggling horse.


  39. Anybody thinking goats supervised Scottish football could be tempted to believe that a 92nd min penalty against East Fife signified approval of Admin


  40. Deafening the silence from the leaders of Scottish football as speculation on rangers precarious situation resounds thru Scottish football… The player’s union; Should they not be seeking some assurances?

    I feel sorry for the people who will inevitably lose their job when the rangers bus hits the wall when those running the show in Scottish football watch, tin hats on, from their bunker. The powers that be should be looking at these people as much as those who take rangers to the wall.


  41. Campbellsmoney says:
    March 3, 2014 at 9:24 am
    11 0 Rate This

    BigGav and HirsutePursuit – I see you two have been advancing the discussions about prohibited names. Cheers and thanks.

    Hopefully I will be able to post some further comments later about s216 and the King who would be The Man.
    ==========================
    FYI. I erroneously referenced the general English/UK Insolvency Rules yesterday (4.229 & 4.227A) – though under the Scottish rules (@ 4.79 & 4.81 respectively), it brings about the same result.

    The rules are the same either way:
    Apply within 7 days (under 4.229 or 4.81) and you have 6 weeks to obtain leave of the court – during which time you can use the “prohibited” name without committing an offence.
    Apply later than 7 days after the liquidation process has begun (under 4.227A or 4.79) and there is no time limit under which an application for leave under s216(3) can be made; but permission must be granted BEFORE the “prohibited” name can be used.

    The court will consider the applicants culpability in the insolvency before reaching its decision.


  42. JimBhoy says:

    March 3, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    Where’s Neil Patey when you need him?
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    If you need him he`ll be rolling about clutching his tummy


  43. I wonder if the rangers will be able to print half the returns of their recent survey!!!! Could be a lot of asterisks used..

    Will Wallace be held in such high regard if the rangers do go into administration.? He has stated at least twice it won’t happen and Ally has referenced that on many occasions. If it does happen will he be a glib and shameless liar!?

    — How many would that be now?


  44. bogsdollox says:
    March 3, 2014 at 1:31 am

    Para Handy says:
    March 2, 2014 at 11:21 am

    Talk of Clubs leaving Scottish football to play in the EPL always amuses me. Supporters of the Clubs concerned focus on how it would improve Scottish football because those left would be capable of winning the domestic competition with all that entails.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    To my mind its about Scottish football fans leaving Scottish football to support in the EPL via the pub/armchair. I’ve never met so many people recently who “don’t bother with the Scottish game but “follow” Chelsea/Man U/Liverpool etc”
    =============================================
    Exactly bogs, if a Scottish club were to end up in the EPL this would only get worse and we would see an even greater exodus of live fans (and TV money) from the Scottish game.


  45. If this Farce had been turned into a movie, it would have swept the boards at last nights Oscar ceremony. An unbelievable tale of corruption with so many illustrious and colourful characters.Shady business deals, underhand fraud, and a few Patsy’s thrown in. The mysterious title of the movie would attract the more sophisticated patrons……………. Best Picture 2014…..(long pause) …..”Sevco 5088 “


  46. Just wondering if anyone else here at TSFM is aware of a chap called Paul Larkin and his ‘Asterisk Years’ documentary project ?

    I’ve only just become aware of it. It appears to be a ‘crowd-funded’ documentary which he intends to make, and in which he intends to make very specific allegations about the governance of Scottish football – particularly with regards to old Rangers EBT use, Ogilvy’s role therein, Regan’s knowledge of Ogilvy’s role, and Murray’s dealings with Whyte.

    You can get a flavour – more than a flavour – of these allegations which he is adamant that he can prove, from the following podcast interview:

    http://www.spreaker.com/user/homebhoys/asterisk-years-interview-6_1?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HailHailMedia+%28Hail+Hail+Media%29

    The first 20 mins of this are concerned with the mechanics/logistics of documentary film making. However, from 20 mins in he describes in detail what he will be alleging – and he says proving – in the ‘programme’.

    IF what he says can be substantiated by solid evidence then I would say that this has the potential to be pretty seismic.

    I’m just wondering if anyone else here is aware of this and/or the chap concerned and his ‘bona fides’ ?


  47. GoosyGoosy says:
    March 3, 2014 at 12:53 pm
    ————————
    Why anyone is looking for Patey is beyond me; he called it completely wrong on HMRC agreeing to a CVA for Rangers nearly 2 years ago; he said they would and less than 24 hrs later came the news most of us had been predicting for some considerable time, they wouldn’t.

    Maybe there’s a curiosity to know what Patey thinks is going to happen this time, on the basis that whatever he says will be the chosen route will be the one that is not taken?


  48. I don’t think that HMRC’s actions on Feb 14 were forseeable (or rather – I dont think that they were forseen). I am not aware of HMRC ever having taken that step before – others might have seen it but if so it is extremely rare and of course there are lots of companies that go bust owing lots to HMRC with, dare I say it, even worse HMRC “records
    ————————————–
    I think that Hector was primed and ready for anything.,Rangers (IL) had pissed them about for over 5 years.releasing pics’ of the revenue men was one of the dumbest actions made by the PR people.
    If anybody at Ibrox thought that they could ride roughshod over Hector no wonder they are no more.

    As for Patey,he’s more likely on his back getting his belly scratched and being told he’s a good boy.


  49. Will Wallace be held in such high regard if the rangers do go into administration.? He has stated at least twice it won’t happen and Ally has referenced that on many occasions. If it does happen will he be a glib and shameless liar!?

    He will simply claim Force Majeure by dint of the ST boycott. Dave King will be blamed and Wallace will exit stage left.


  50. slimshady61 says:

    March 3, 2014 at 1:27 pm
    GoosyGoosy says:
    March 3, 2014 at 12:53 pm
    ————————
    Why anyone is looking for Patey is beyond me; he called it completely wrong on HMRC agreeing to a CVA for Rangers nearly 2 years ago; he said they would and less than 24 hrs later came the news most of us had been predicting for some considerable time, they wouldn’t.

    Maybe there’s a curiosity to know what Patey thinks is going to happen this time, on the basis that whatever he says will be the chosen route will be the one that is not taken?
    ============================================================================
    Slim…whilst there is probably a curiosity as to what he thinks, since it is likely to be wrong as you say, I suspect that Ernst and Young have put an informal gag, at least, on him.
    The embarrassment that TRFC has brought to E & Y, by association with Patey, is matched only by that of Deloittes in their dealings with TRFC. But then again, at least Deloittes were “paid” advisers”…they have been paid, surely?


  51. Yes, but what is the definition of a “League Match?”

    Is it a fixture as scheduled on the list of fixtures published at the beginning of the season or does it include play-off games? More wording to allow endless and expensive legal debate methinks.


  52. I see that the SPFL accounts are flagged at Companies house as overdue – should have been filed on Friday. Perhaps Phil Mc could enquire if there is any problem?


  53. Patey comment was a little/lot facetious… 😆

    I’d rather listen to big DJ’s take on the current rangers situation or billy Dodds both of who would have a similar accuracy level to Patey.. I suspect as one poster put it that Mr Patey has been gagged this time…

    — Serious question though, if the rangers keep the lights on for another month or so then find they have no option but to enter an administration and the cupboard is bare, how would the administrator get paid (by a company who owns nothing)?


  54. JimBhoy says:
    March 3, 2014 at 2:26 pm
    – Serious question though, if the rangers keep the lights on for another month or so then find they have no option but to enter an administration and the cupboard is bare, how would the administrator get paid (by a company who owns nothing)?

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————
    What do you mean? Why would the cupboard be bare? You mean TRFC would have no assets at all? None? No ground, no cash, no tops, no players, no training park, no “history” 😆 to sell? Nothing? That is not going to be the case.

    So the answer is is the administrator sells what is there and takes his fee.


  55. Para Handy says:

    March 3, 2014 at 2:29 pm
    Interesting headline in that the Board of Sevco haven’t asked but have apparently “demanded” that King meet with them:
    ====================
    I don’t think that will bother him too much,he’s fairly used to getting a summons.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26420403


  56. JimBhoy you may just get your wish 😕 BFDJ on SSB tonight ……….. Could be interesting! He may even get his certainometer out 😉


  57. Goosy Goosy
    Anybody thinking goats supervised Scottish football could be tempted to believe that a 92nd min penalty against East Fife signified approval of Admin
    ——————————————————————
    Not really, moreso you probably haven’t bothered to check on the penalty award which was of the stonewall variety. A 92nd minute penalty is as valid as at any other time in the game.

    92 (theories) and still waiting


  58. I said it before I still believe it today, I don’t see Rangers (any one of them) going into Administration as I don’t believe that is the plan.

    I can see them continuing in the same mode and generating more income by increasing ticket prices and asking the fans to buy into a “some sort of” share issue. I can also see the training ground released with the car park and The Wee Hoose sold off completely.

    If there is an event, I think that will come only if Dave King gets enough fans to buy into his idea.

    Now if Dave King is actually party to this whole charade then I reserve the right to change my story to reflect current events….. Watch this Space….


  59. Campbellsmoney says:
    March 3, 2014 at 2:49 pm
    3 1 i
    Rate This

    JimBhoy says:
    March 3, 2014 at 2:26 pm
    – Serious question though, if the rangers keep the lights on for another month or so then find they have no option but to enter an administration and the cupboard is bare, how would the administrator get paid (by a company who owns nothing)?

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————
    What do you mean? Why would the cupboard be bare? You mean TRFC would have no assets at all? None? No ground, no cash, no tops, no players, no training park, no “history” to sell? Nothing? That is not going to be the case
    ________________________________

    It seems to me that the main body assets are encumbered by CW’s letter of claim over them, and before any ceasing of trading their “ownership” or the TRFC claim to such would be shifted from TRFC to RIFC.
    I think the admin option may well be too expensive – the unemcumbered assets are now security for a short term loan.

    I can genuinely see a circumstance where, if they don’t enter admin fairly soon, they simply run out of cash and cease trading.


  60. stan free says:

    March 3, 2014 at 2:18 pm
    2
    0

    Yes, but what is the definition of a “League Match?”
    ——————————————————————————–

    A League Match means a match designated as such by the Company and played in the League;

    A play-off match would appear to be held in the close season.

    Most rules in other walks of life will have a discretionary “catch-all” to cater for the unlikely and unforeseen eventuality.

    As an example, it is not unknown for HFL to finish with a game or two left unplayed if it doesn’t affect the final positions. In the circumstances of one club having a fixture backlog, such a rule would allow the SPFL board to declare a season “over” rather than be in June trying to get fixtures completed when contracts have expired, players are on holiday etc.


  61. @Campbellsmoney says:
    March 3, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    It’s my understanding that TRFC own nothing but debts and player contracts… RIFC have those assets.. TRFC would be the clumpany facing the chop I believe…Would the parent company then fork out to put TRFC through Administration….


  62. Regarding Section 216

    Who is correct? As has been noted in the posts, the prohibition on re-use of prohibited names is subject to exceptions.

    As has been noted these are of two types:-

    (i) there is an exception built into the wording of Section 216(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986. This is the sub-section that creates the prohibition but says that the prohibition will apply “except with the leave of the court”. I will call this the “Inbuilt Exception”.

    (ii) There is also another group of exceptions (these are contained for us in the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986). The Scottish and English rules are fairly similar here. There are three exceptions in this group. I wont rehash them, as none of them can possibly now ever apply to Dave King. I will refer to these as the “Extra Exceptions”.

    In my earlier email, I focused (misleadingly I now suspect) on the Extra Exceptions. I did not focus on the Inbuilt Exception.

    There were two reasons for this.

    The first is that I have never seen the Inbuilt Exception used in Scotland. That is not all that surprising given the size of the jurisdiction and the fact that the legislation has only been in place since 1986 (which in terms of the law, is the blink of an eye). That is not to say that it has not been used in Scotland, just that I haven’t seen it and I can’t find any reported cases on it in Scotland.

    So what we have to do is look at what happens in the English courts.

    It should be noted that there is no statutory guidance as to what a court will consider when deciding whether or not it will grant leave to anyone who seeks to avail themselves of the Inbuilt Exception. The case law is conflicting. What I can glean from the cases and the textbooks on this subject is that a court will look at the facts and circumstances of the involvement of the relevant director in the insolvency of the Company that went into liquidation. The Court may feel minded to have regard to the type of issues to which it would have regard when considering whether it is appropriate to disqualify a director in respect of any insolvency.

    Now, of course at this stage, we have no idea what proceedings may or may not be being considered with regard to disqualification proceedings for anyone who was a director of the company that went into liquidation. It was clearly a very expensive (certainly for the creditors) insolvency. There was also deliberate non-payment of tax and these are exactly the kind of things that a court takes into account when considering disqualification.

    At all relevant times Dave King was a director. It might be relevant to consider what Dave King did with regard to issues such as the non payment of tax. Did he know? Did he not know? Did he attempt to find out? What did he do if he couldn’t find out? Did he simply sit on his hands? His own involvement (lack of involvement?) with tax may also be viewed with interest.

    This takes me to the second point why I did not focus on the Inbuilt Exception – the inherent uncertainty of such an application. Dave King cannot be certain of the outcome of an application for leave using the Inbuilt Exception. The case law simply cannot give him any comfort that an application will be successful. In any such application, the Court can ask the liquidator for a report on Dave King’s conduct in the liquidation and the Court can ask for input from the governmental authority that has responsibility for disqualification proceedings. Dave King cannot be certain of what either or both of those entities might contribute to the evidence in such an application.

    That leads to the issue of timing. While I expect that an application for leave under the “Inbuilt Exception” might be able to be heard relatively quickly, there is no certainty about this. Courts can move exceedingly slowly or, in cases of urgency (for example interdict interdicts), they can move exceedingly quickly. Dave King has had many many months to put forward such an application. He has not done so. Of course until now, any such application would have been purely hypothetical given that there was no prospect of him being involved until now (to the extent that there is any prospect now).

    But, if I was planning to be spending millions of pounds to become involved in the management of a company I would not be leaving to chance and the outcome of an inherently uncertain court process, my ability to be involved in the management.

    So, Dave King cannot be involved in the promotion, management or formation of in any company with the words “Rangers” and “Football” in its name. For the moment.

    Whether Dave King can become involved at a later date depends upon whether or not he gets leave.

    Whether or not he gets leave is at the discretion of the Court. Until the question is asked of a court by Dave King, no one can be 100% sure of the outcome – not me and not Dave King.

    He does however seem rather low down on the list of deserving cases.

    It was entirely right of others to point out that there still exists a mechanism whereby he could lawfully one day be a director.


  63. Danish Pastry says:

    March 3, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    I didn’t read much of that story, got kind of put off when I saw the writer thought showing how much of a Rangers man the would be lender was, was more important than, well anything else. While much of what the guy McClure said was undoubtedly valid, re why was something in a business plan suddenly urgent? It smacks of just another group of well off, but not rich, supporters doing another ‘Blue Knights’ and offering to put together money, that never materialises. As has been said so often, where were they before now? I don’t think trotting out any number of people who ‘were prepared to help/lend money’ is going to solve anything now, it just seems to be making the cracks between the factions wider.


  64. Yup. Its just seems so coincidental as to rule out co-incidence! I get the impression the irony isn’t lost on Wallace and I hope Phil knows what he’s doing as well.

    King has been commanded to attend a board meeting. Really? The person everyone singled out as the saviour has been told to attend a board meeting at the crash site? Well blow me down with a feather and crush my grapes! Is it incumbent that he brings his cheque book too? I’m guessing he’s not washing his hair that day either. It has been said over and over. It makes no sense whatsoever for the bus to crash now (the lack of cash could have been addressed months ago either by less public loans, cost cuttting or player sales to get them to May). Jeez, the saintees fan from the far east (sorry forget his screen persona) told them the cash runs out in Feb 2014 18 months ago!!! If they must go down the admin route why not wait tilll May with a back to back deal lined up? Nice and clean. King appears to be forcing administration, not necessarily now but the season ticket embargo will scupper them long term. But it would be an administration that in itself would also be unnecessary – are the player contract uplifts and win bonusses that bad? Because they’re surely going to TUPE anyway! RIFC have had for long enough now the means to effect the property transfer in return for writing off debt. The TRFC bundle is glaringly the bad egg so flog it sans assets for a £1 to whoever wants a tie and let them deal with the money pit in whatever fashion they want.
    Its not as though the transfer of membership is going to be problem is it!

    It increasingly looks, smells and sounds like a simple stand-off – the holder of the assets (and that’s with clear title, which my gut instinct still tells me has a lot to do with the current state of play) staring down the fan’s hero with probably the key negotiating weapon being the threat of admin, and hence points deduction come august.

    But that assumes there are two (or more) separate parties, and I’m still not convinced. The sniffometer is in overdrive.


  65. @Danish Pastry says:
    March 3, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    That read reminded me of Wattie telling Green that the cardigan consortium will give him his money back if he goes and hands sevco to them… Wattie gonna spring £6m for Green to say it cost closer to £20m to conclude the sevco deal (pants on fire) but the cardigan consortium did do walking away at that… Too little too late.


  66. Allyjambo says:
    March 3, 2014 at 4:09 pm

    Think you beat me to that mate… 💡

Comments are closed.