Good Evening.
When considering any type of protracted negotiation or discussion that seems to be going on too long, there is a story that is always worth remembering– whether it is actually a true story or not as the case may be.
It is said, that heads of state all met at a congress in what is now modern Germany sometime after the Franco Prussian war of 1870-1871.The entire congress was being run almost singlehandedly by the then Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismark and he was keen to get all the necessary signatures on paper to seal some deal or other.
However, others at the congress were not too keen to sign up to certain elements of the proposed deal and so they hithered and dithered and in the eyes of Bismark they simply waisted time by concentrating on the minutiae- the little matters, with a view to ensuring their own interests were best served in these small areas– and did not focus on the big issue.
Having tried to talk these others round and educate them in his own beliefs and point of view on the bigger picture without any success, Bismark grew weary of the continuing delay and the posturing of his colleagues. All attempts at reason and diplomacy had failed in his eyes and so he decided to take a different tack.
Accordingly, it is said that whilst others were still inside debating endlessly on this matter or that, Bismark left the building and began simply shooting the windows in with the aid of a riffle which he just happened to have handy.
Those inside were naturally alarmed at this turn of events. They soon forgot about the minutiae under debate, they abandoned the previously expressed self interest and simply signed up so that they could get away from the mad chancellor and his house.
Job done so to speak.
Whilst I do not in anyway condone the behaviour of Otto von Bismark in this instance, and have no doubt that he was an autocrat, what I will say is that he believed that there was too much time being spent on the unimportant stuff and not enough time recognising what really needed doing– from his point of view of course.
Today– and it seems every day for months— we have endless debate about the future of Scottish Football. League reconstruction and the redistribution of footballing wealth has become a marathon– even before it has started.
Yet I believe that at the moment all parties concerned are not focusing on the radical reform that is fundamentally needed which is the creation of one, strong, properly structured and constituted body which is capable of the proper and ethical governance of Scottish Football and the business that surrounds football.
No matter what system you try, or distribution you agree, without proper sensible strong governance you are wasting your time.
Further, whatever body is set up, and whoever is chosen to be its CEO (or whatever the head honcho is going to be called), they must tackle the issue of corporate and fiscal compliance and the proper administration of any body corporate which actively takes part in Scottish Football– and that includes any such body or person who is involved in the running of a member club.
In addition, in so dealing with any corporate malfeasance or chicanery or whatever, the rules have to be applied with a rod of iron by an iron body.
As we can now clearly see, Football clubs and football in general is not, and never will be, immune from the effects of bad corporate governance and on occasion downright manipulation of facts, figures and contracts.
Whilst great play has been made of the fact that Gavin Masterton has handed over his shares in Dunfermline FC ( or its holding company ) the fact of the matter is that this in no way solves the problem faced by the football club. Whoever gains control of that club will still have to rent the ground from Mr Masterton’s company– and it is a rent that the club may just not be able to afford.
Ever!
It is only my opinion of course, but I am of the view that Mr Masterton has sealed a loan deal with his bankers which is of a type and duration which could not normally be achieved by other borrowers. The Loan has a lengthy period during which no repayments are necessary and interest can continue to accrue.
All very good you may say, but the level of debt concerned is not one that appears to be sustainable by Dunfermline FC and so whoever buys the club as a going concern ( if anyone buys it at all ) will have to pay an agreed rental to Gavin Masterton– and if the rental is not sufficient to repay Mr Masterton’s lenders, then I suspect that the end game here will be a search to find a buyer for the ground at some point over the next twenty years or so, with the hope that as part of the deal a space will be found somewhere for a new ground like New St Mirren park– the difference being that in that instance St Mirren were in charge of their future whereas Dunfermline are not.
The Governance of that club and the financial arrangements behind the club should have been looked at and examined by the SFA long before now– and the Dunfermline fans warned about the dangers of any such arrangements. Effectively those finance arrangements, should they continue, will probably mean that the club will have no option but to move from its established home!
All to suit one man!
Thankfully Dundee were spared a full takeover by Giovanni Di Stefano, however is it not a bit worrying that this man who has been jailed for over 14 years for various fraudulent acts, was allowed to roam around Scottish Football for a prolonged period?
Not so long ago Di Stefano did play a part at Dens, was in line to buy almost 30% of the shareholding, and was oft quoted in the papers and so on. The thing is that there were those who were prepared to give him a place at the Dundee table and in so doing invited him into Scottish Football.
Surely the SFA, had they been inclined to, could quite easily have pointed out that many of the claims of Mr Di Stefano were at least dubious if not completely incorrect? Yet nothing was being said at the time and silence prevailed.
Whilst not in the same calibre as Di Dtefano, Vladimir Romanov has now been at Hearts for a prolonged period. While I have no quibbles about the legality of Romanov’s takeover of Hearts, any money of a sizeable size which is transferred into Scotland from a foreign country will be subject to scrutiny by the Crown office to ensure that it is clean. Lithuania in particular is said to have a banking system which is governed loosely and sometimes does not meet the compliance standards expected in this country.
With his bank having gone bust, Romanov still retains the majority shareholding at Tynecastle, but there are questions still to be answered about what has happened at Hearts but life will be very different for the Edinburgh club going forward.
Again– could the SFA have done more to monitor the situation and could they have demanded clarity and detail from the Hearts owner as to his business dealings and the detailed arrangements with his bank?
At Ibrox, well things just go from the weird and inexplicable to downright astonishing– and all through a tremendous amount of smoke and mirrors.
It is clear that the SFA have no idea what to believe from Charles Green or for that matter Craig Whyte. On the face of it, there are clear links between Whyte and Green with the former paying over a six figure sum in return for absolutely nothing it would appear– with similar transactions going between Whyte’s colleague, Aiden Early, and Charles Green.
What is clear is that Green gave a clear undertaking to the SFA that he had nothing whatsoever to do with Whyte and would have nothing to do with Whyte going forward. Now, at the very least he is admitting that he met Whyte on several occasions, and whilst he may have made representations to Craig Whyte— these were all lies designed only to get Whyte to where Green wanted him.
This is hardly the act of someone who has been bona fides in his business dealings either with Whyte or with the SFA as the licensing body.
It is against this background that the Scottish Football Agencies need to wake up before they find the fans of the game ( at least those who want to stay interested in the game ) doing a Bismarck and panning in the windows of this whole house of cards.
Football Clubs, football fans, and indeed football itself needs protected from the financial and corporate shenanigans, and the governing body must be much more active and permanently vigilant in watching out for and if necessary anticipating the people and the transactions which have and will jeopardise clubs and the game in general going forward.
It is clearly no longer acceptable to rely on self regulation or mere declarations and undertakings from the clubs themselves. The Administrators must be much more active and employ far greater professional expertise in carrying out an almost constant analytical and reporting function in relation to club finance and corporate regulation.
All and any changes in funding, boardroom changes, investor changes and anything else major should be the subject of immediate and proper scrutiny by the SFA and there should be fair, immediate and stiff sanctions for non compliance, and any type of dilatory behaviour on the part of club officials who would seek to conceal the truth or who fail to properly disclose vital matters which should be out in the open.
Further, the funding detail– such as the never ending loan re Dunfermline should be a matter of public record in all its detail so that fans and investors can make information based value judgements when dealing with any club.
Such stiffer regulation should not develop into anything like a corporate witch hunt or any kind of draconian big brother syndrome, however the need for change given all of the current troubles is obvious to one and all.
Further, the attempted fudge surrounding Rangers league status last summer and the ongoing disquiet surrounding the position of Campbell Ogilvie does nothing to boost faith in and the reputation of Football Administration in Scotland.
Things are far from clear and there appears to be continual dithering and fudging. No one has any idea where the Nimmo Smith Report has gone nor what import it is to have— if any. Why is that?
Dithering and bumbling over detail is no longer an option. Strong clear governance is required to protect the game from being hijacked by those who have their own corporate and financial agendas.
Such people cannot be allowed to determine the way Scottish Football runs or to conduct themselves in a fashion that leaves football and everyone involved in limbo.
It is time for Scottish Football to find its own Iron Chancellor! There is a need for someone who will, if necessary, come along and shoot the lights out of any club or Company Director who wishes to play fast and loose with the game of football.
Radiccio (@radiccio) says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 00:15
————————————————–
I agree in as much as the opportunity to improve the balance should be taken by the smaller clubs while there is no OF coalition to protect their position but I can’t quite agree with commandeering 50% of the CL money or as has been suggested by others before 50% of all home gates.
To redistribute all the wealth just goes against the grain for me, doesn’t quite feel right so I’d never advocate it.
The sad thing is if there had been just a little more balance in this SPL set up over the years we wouldn’t have quite the gap we do now. Years of deprivation have really impacted the smaller clubs. The big 2 really didn’t need to protect their position at the top by maintaining this but they desired a complete stranglehold and got it.
At most I could see myself agree with some sort small compromise where a league solidarity fund could be created by capturing 5% of all gates and all european prize money and redistributing it evenly among all clubs? But even at that I’d need to be convinced.
Auldheid says:
Sunday, April 21, 2013 at 18:50
………………………………..
You will find Auldheid..that the SFA are so hellbent/desperate for SEVCO to exist they will continue to ignore rules…
You will find if SEVCO go belly up at the end of the season…and the next incarnation could only guarantee 6 months existence…they would still get a licence…and if the next incarnation after that could only promise 3 months they to would still be granted a licence…
The ever diminishing life cycle of the many faces of Fu man Chu doesn’t concern the SFA….having a tribute act of any discription appears to be their only criteria for granting a licence…regardless of their life expectancy..
No ‘copying & Pasting’ without approval!
Say what you see!
vforvernacular says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 00:31
===================================
I’m of the view that big clubs with a big support have earned the right to benefit from that advantage, but within a domestic context only.
When that advantage leads onto CL prize money that dwarfs the funds available to the rest of that nations competing teams, some form of redress in the form of prize money redistribution is required.
Celtic shouldn’t think of it a smaller teams gaining an unfair share of their prize money, but as providing an opportunity for all North Ayrshire teams to compete
By North Ayrshire I meant Scottish, giving my location away there!
Radiccio (@radiccio) says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 01:12
===================================
I’m of the view that big clubs with a big support have earned the right to benefit from that advantage, but within a domestic context only.
When that advantage leads onto CL prize money that dwarfs the funds available to the rest of that nations competing teams, some form of redress in the form of prize money redistribution is required.
Celtic shouldn’t think of it a smaller teams gaining an unfair share of their prize money, but as providing an opportunity for all North Ayrshire teams to compete
===========================================================
Gilmour was qouted today in some lying rag or other saying that under the much voted for 12-12-18 or bust proposal his club gave up £100,000 a year and in proportion Celtic gave up £10,000 (based on turnover). That doesn’t sound fair and Celtic need to do better than that if Scottish Football is to be saved before Celtic leg it.
Auldheid says:
Sunday, April 21, 2013 at 18:50
49 1 Rate This
=======================================
Of course you are right.
The old club would have failed to meet the required standards (lack of audited accounts) and the new club has never been put forward for a licence.
It is the SFA’s Licencing Committee which awards, refuses or suspends a Club Licence -following the annual club audit. The audit process takes place at the end of each season for the award of a Club Licence for the following season.
Obviously, since Sevco Scotland did not exist at the end of season 2011/12 it could not have been granted a Club Licence for season 2012/13. As the SFA board has no power to grant a Club Licence, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Sevco Scotland’s version of Rangers are still “unlicenced”.
However, from my understanding of the SFA’s articles, there seems to be no penalty for an unlicenced club that has never actually held a Club Licence. It is only if an existing licence is suspended for a period exceeding 6 months or the board determines that a club fails to meet the minimum standards, that a sanction “may” follow.
It is unlikely (in the extreme) that the board would feel sufficiently motivated to make such a determination. It is even less likely that the board would allow a judicial panel to terminate or suspend TRFC’s membership following a Club Licencing failure.
“…any decision under Article 15.2 will not be final and binding. All members will have the right to a further appeal against any such determination or decision to the Board whose decision will be final and binding.”
Ultimately, it will make no practical difference whether they are granted a Licence for the coming season or not..
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_53-136_Articles_of_Association.pdf
Slightly O/T…
Souness complaining on Sky Sports about Suarez’s cannabilistic tendencies.
“This is not the first time he has bitten someone in the football match. He is risking everything this great club stands for. I’ve never seen something like that in a football match before.
“There are lines you just can’t cross, and he has crossed it today.”
=======================================================
Obviously, Souness is talking sense based on his significant experience…until you remember one of his own ‘tackles’ in particular – which still makes me wince after all these years…
To be fair, Souness didn’t mess about with ‘girly’ biting of opponents, (apologies Brenda/Jean), he simply tried to kick their goolies up their throats !!
Lovely chap. 🙄
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygVgxYa3mlo
Removed – homophobic language
As a lifelong CFC fan … But a disillusioned footie fan … May I put a hypothetical question to any and all …. What if … The 40 teams outwith CFC & TRFCL decided they had had enough and that they were going to go forward without “the big two” … ?
What If eh ?
Oooh
Where would that leave my team & sevco ?
Flocculent Apoidea says:
Sunday, April 21, 2013 at 21:55
28 0 Rate This
…. It’s what we get for having a football club named after a meandering river, rather than any town.
———–
Great line, and meandering is much more benign than ‘nomadic’. Really hope this move works out.
StevieBC says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 02:13
in the video – looks who is first up to defend Mr Souness, a cheeky chappy 🙂
Cheers to the Caley fans who offered their congratulations to me on my team winning the league.Refreshing.
whisperer18 says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 04:25
As a lifelong CFC fan … But a disillusioned footie fan … May I put a hypothetical question to any and all …. What if … The 40 teams outwith CFC & TRFCL decided they had had enough and that they were going to go forward without “the big two” … ?
What If eh ?
Oooh
Where would that leave my team & sevco ?
================================================
In my humble opinion it would only change the 11-1 voting structure on all matters and not much else. The new league would invite Celtic and Sevco on their terms. However, Celtic and Sevco would be required to attract a reasonable amount of sponsorship and TV money, so it’s unlikely the boot would be put into either of them too much. There would be a lot of sabre rattling and chest thumping but not much else IMO.
The circle I keep trying to square is how to get back to days when Aberdeen spent a few seasons as the major on-field power, Dundee Utd were absolutely excellent and Hearts somehow lost a league title that was so close for weeks they could almost touch it. Can those days ever return? It’s easy to say no, but I remember in the 70’s many observers stated without fear of contradiction that no team other than Celtic or Rangers would ever win the league again – they were wrong. In the 70’s the Berlin wall remained intact and the Cold War was in full flow. The prospect of any type of ceasefire in Northern Ireland would have been scorned and the notion that Rangers would be liquidated in the future would not even have been given air time. So let’s wait and see.
Prior to the publication in the MSM of alledged tape recordings between TGEF and CG which appear to show that Green and Whyte were working together e.g. “You are Sevco now”; reported transfer of funds between both camps to raise cash to support securing preferred bidder status; and the publication of documents at Companies House regarding Directorships etc. the informed view on RTC and TSFM was that gratuitous alienation was not a consideration with regard of the sale of the assets of Rangers Football Club Ltd.
To what extent has that view now changed?
There has been much activity lately, and I thought it would be useful if we could crystalise opinion on this point.
Rabo Karabekian says:
Sunday, April 21, 2013 at 21:46
82 1 Rate This
As a Celtic fan, I know this is heresy, but I would not be too unhappy if Hibs won the Scottish Cup. I am thinking of the fact that for the second year in a row, the trophies would go to three different teams, with five teams in all having success over that two years of Armageddon.
======================================
I personally would be unhappy, but only for a day or so. I always think by the law of averages Hibs have to get it some time, although I thought last year might have been that sometime!
8 6 Rate This
Radiccio (@radiccio) says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 01:12
===================================
I’m of the view that big clubs with a big support have earned the right to benefit from that advantage, but within a domestic context only.
When that advantage leads onto CL prize money that dwarfs the funds available to the rest of that nations competing teams, some form of redress in the form of prize money redistribution is required.
Celtic shouldn’t think of it a smaller teams gaining an unfair share of their prize money, but as providing an opportunity for all North Ayrshire teams to compete
===========================================================
Gilmour was qouted today in some lying rag or other saying that under the much voted for 12-12-18 or bust proposal his club gave up £100,000 a year and in proportion Celtic gave up £10,000 (based on turnover). That doesn’t sound fair and Celtic need to do better than that if Scottish Football is to be saved before Celtic leg it.
……………………………………………….
Celtic could start by letting the visiting team keep the ticket money from travelling fans? That way its in the other clubs own interests to encourage a larger travelling support, it would spread more money through the game, improve atsmosphere, fans may travel as they dont feel they are unfairly giving money to the big fish and celtic would still benifit from catering etc.
At least a start without costing much to celtic?
Radiccio (@radiccio) says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 00:15
Were you really unaware what Celtic’s “concessions” was on the overall package that the clubs were voting on?
————————————-
Play the ball Radiccio, not the man.
I tried to agree with the point made, that Celtic were being very unfair and I stated, as a supporter of that club, I am very disappointed to hear that. Be a hater if you want but don’t attempt to drag me down there by questioning my integrity, if I say I wasn’t aware then I wasn’t aware!
myohmy1 says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 06:49
Cheers to the Caley fans who offered their congratulations to me on my team winning the league.Refreshing.
—————————————————————————————————————
the “caley” fans may well be very friendly
but
caley are the same as rangers
– they no longer exist !!
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Sunday, April 21, 2013 at 17:54
Good Evening.
…
Now having said all that I want to specifically comment on a couple of posts above.
Whether as a Celtic fan or a Thistle fan I recall many great games against Clyde Football Club.
Included in that has to be the final game of the Lisbon Lions in 1971 but over and above that occasion I can recall several games against Clyde at Shawfield– one where Tommy Gemmell went in goal ( I think Ronnie Simpson had been sent off ) and another where Dixie Deans I think ran amok.
==============
I think Simpson dislocated his shoulder, hence Gemmell going in goals.
therampantbaron says:
Sunday, April 21, 2013 at 19:03
BRTH, I think both those Clyde Celtic games were in 1971. Did Simpson not dislocate his shoulder at so Gemmell took over? Simpson then led Celtic out at the end of the season but didn’t actually play in the game as his career was over.
—————————-
This is correct, I believe.
Rabo Karabekian says:
Sunday, April 21, 2013 at 21:42
He got injured again in a 1969 0-0 Scottish Cup draw against Clyde – again at Shawfield (the first incidence of the shoulder injury which finished his career).
————-
Just to throw more trivia into this, I think this game was mid week with a 5pm kick off.
Richard Wilson @timomouse 44m
Rangers make a director declaration to the LSE confirming Charles Green a director of Sevco 5088 at IPO stage http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11557259 …
Retweeted by Celtic Underground
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Richard Wilson @timomouse 45m
Rangers make a director declaration to the LSE confirming Charles Green a director of Sevco 5088 at IPO stage http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11557259 …
Flocculent Apoidea says: Sunday, April 21, 2013 at 21:55
I appreciate it was the perfect storm of overspending previous owner, seeming indifference (bordering on hinderance at times) from the local authorities, and lack of interest from the majority of locals that left us in the position where East Kilbride’s offer was a bit of a no brainer, but I’m seeing it as someone who, despite it’s faults, wants to see senior football in my hometown. As Brogan said earlier, it’s great having football on your doorstep. Unfortunately, that will now no longer be the case for Cumbernauld.
The idea that one of the largest population centres in Scotland will not have a team strikes me as odd (and yes, I’m aware that the same thing could be currently applied to EK), and it was a frustration for me that for years you would see buses heading to Glasgow every weekend, full of Rangers and Celtic fans when there was a team on their own doorstep that could have thrived with their support. However, I don’t think I’m saying anything different to what fans of local teams countrywide will recognise, and I suppose we’re closer to Glasgow than most. I also find the precedent it sets slightly worrying in that we are moving towards a franchise set up.
Anyway, to continue the theme, like the River, I’m meandering, when I could just have said ” My team’s leaving me, and I’m not happy.”
Jim Larkin@7.58
Point taken Jim.If a tad churlish.
More comedy gold in today’s DR from the Sportswriter of The Year
———————————————————————————–
THE war for the soul of Rangers Football Club – a brutal and bloody conflict first revealed in these very pages – has entered a critical phase.
By the middle of this week, when the smoke should begin to clear from the battlefield of the boardroom, we will see who has been left standing. And, just as importantly, who has fallen.
In the meantime, the first casualty – as is always the case in such gory matters – has been the truth.
Once again Rangers fans have been misled as to the true nature of this savage struggle for power.
Anyone with Rangers’ best interests at heart knows a solution must be found or the consequences for the ravaged club might be too terrible for fans to contemplate.
Already the club is being torn apart from the inside. Chief executive Charles Green may be yesterday’s man after standing down last week but he leaves behind a board in a state of disarray.
On one side of the divide stand Walter Smith, chairman Malcolm Murray and one other non-executive director.
On the other side are Brian Stockbridge – Green’s financial director – and the two remaining non-execs. One of them is Ian Hart, who became particularly close to Green after being appointed to the new board.
It’s three versus three in the battle for Ibrox.
It’s up to the supporters to decide who they trust in all of this but it appears the Smith and Murray camp, as well as manager Ally McCoist, have huge concerns about the club’s executive management.
Yes, Green may be gone but his allies from Zeus Capital are still on the inside and they seem equally committed to standing their ground.
What happened in the aftermath of Green’s resignation on Friday points to what is going on behind the scenes.
First, it emerged that Craig Mather had been proposed to fill Green’s role on an interim basis with the possibility that will become permanent.
Then came word that accountants from Deloitte were fronting up an independent probe into Green’s affairs and, in particular, claims that the Yorkshireman was doing business with the club’s disgraced former owner Craig Whyte. Both of these issues are fundamental to just how this war is won. And by whom.
Mather’s emergence has raised the level of alert for Smith’s side. They suspect he was hand-picked by Stockbridge and Imran Ahmad, who are still in position despite Green’s removal.
Mather was described by Green as one of his founder investors. For a £1million payment, he was given the title of sporting director, overseeing Murray Park.
Nottingham-based Mather runs his own sports management firm. They focus on developing young players who may have been cast aside by clubs.
It’s understood earlier this season he put together a team of such kids for a match at Murray Park against an appropriately aged Rangers XI.
They were thrashed and sent home again, presumably much to Mather’s frustration.
Since then, he has hardly been spotted in or around the training ground and doubts have been expressed as to what he has been doing as sporting director. All of which makes his sudden re-emergence as a possible CEO more remarkable.
It’s anticipated Mather’s appointment will be pushed through, against opposition, this morning.
But the very fact that it was not simply rubberstamped during a scrambled board meeting on Saturday underlines the deep divisions at the club’s heart.
The appointment of Deloitte astonished Smith and McCoist in particular, given that Stockbridge, Ahmad and Green are strongly linked to that firm.
Let’s not forget they hired Deloitte to assist in their takeover of Rangers and in December’s share offer.
Given that the board had promised to launch an independent probe into the current state of the club there is disbelief that Deloitte – Green’s personal tax advisers – could be shoe-horned into the front line of any inquiry.
And Murray and Smith have identified another man for this critical job and one whose credentials – of being entirely independent – they believe to be above reproach.
As McCoist said on Saturday, they realise the need for the club to be seen to be cleaning up from the inside out.
If Rangers are to survive then, crucially, they must be seen to be fixing their own damage.
It’s not just the club’s fans who must be able to trust the men in charge but also the football authorities, who may feel as if they have been misled once too often over the last two years.
There is a danger that anything less will reek of a cover-up and, at this particular stage, that’s the last thing Rangers need to stand accused of.
Which is why Smith and Murray have lined up a Scottish businessman of impeccable standing to carry out this work. It is the Record’s understanding they want him in position by the middle of this week with carte blanche to carry out whatever inquiries he sees fit.
He could do worse than to start by demanding certain documentation from Stockbridge and Ahmad. Like solid proof of the current state of the club’s bank balance, for example, because although Rangers should have more than £20million in the account following December’s share sale, not even Murray has been given sight of the evidence.
There are many more questions which need to be answered, most importantly, who owns Murray Park and Ibrox?
Because if these assets belong to Whyte or to anyone else, then Rangers are facing another battle for survival.
The question now is, will Smith and Murray’s trouble-shooter be invited to head up the investigation?
Or will Mather’s expected appointment be forced through first to break the current deadlock?
The answers to the above will determine which direction this club are heading.
And which party has won the war for Rangers’ soul.
Just another mistake i’m sure
Rangers Security Services Limited
No results for ‘rangers security services’
Showing first five results for ‘rangers security’ in GB
RANGERS SECURITY LIMITED (Dissolved)
RANGERS SECURITY LTD (Dissolved)
RANGERS SECURITY COMPANY LIMITED (Dissolved)
Now if they had used GARRION SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED
Current directors and secretaries
Current Officer Name Appointed
Mr Brian Stockbridge 28-09-2012
Charles Alexander Green 8-09-2012
This company does not have a group structure
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC433635#summary-tab
bl00tered says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 08:07 (Edit)
He got injured again in a 1969 0-0 Scottish Cup draw against Clyde – again at Shawfield (the first incidence of the shoulder injury which finished his career).
————-
Just to throw more trivia into this, I think this game was mid week with a 5pm kick off.
___________________________________________________________________
The original tie (due to be played on the previous Saturday) was postponed and the game was played on a Monday or Tuesday around lunchtime. There were many empty seats in class that day 🙂
vforvernacular says:
Sunday, April 21, 2013 at 23:40
I agree with this, but I’d go even further.
Why dos the winner of the league need to also win money for doing so? Surely becoming champions is motivation enough, and the presence or absence of a further cash reward for finishing first would have no bearing on clubs’ motivation to win the league.
Give the league champions £0 for winning.
If a Champions League place goes to any team finishing lower than first, give them £0 for their league placing as well.
1. Tommy says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 08:31
THE war for the soul of Rangers Football Club – a brutal and bloody– has entered a critical phase.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Oh Dear
There`s a big fight in the bad fire
We all know who`ll win that one
So in the release the Stock Exchange, Rangers admit
1) they omitted 11 directorships of Green in the company’s AIM admission document
2) they omitted 10 directorships of Stockbridge in the same document
3) Sevco 5088 is a subsidiary of RIFC
So Whyte is a director of a subsidiary of RIFC and there were (at least) 21 factual inaccuracies in the flotation document.
It seems little reliance can be placed on anything contained in that document. It’s not cleansing that’s needed, it’s fumigation
Richard Wilson @timomouse 1h
Just re-read it. Sevco 5088 is a subsidiary of Rangers. So, Craig Whyte is a director of a subsidiary of Rangers.
Retweeted by Celtic Underground
Collapse Reply Retweet Favorite More
————————————————
Using this guy’s logic new club claiming The Rangers Shop Limited is a subsidiary of RIFC,if true then does that mean that david Murray is involved with the new club.
THE RANGERS SHOP LIMITED
Shareholders
Latest Shareholders Equity Figure:
£0
Issued Share Capital:
£100
Shareholders (Top 20 names shown)
DAVID EDWARD MURRAY
RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
http://www.soccerex.com/industry-news/concacaf-accuses-former-leaders-of-fraud/?
Roddy Forsyth – Daily Telegraph – giving a v good informative account of on-going matters from inside the present set-up – pinch of salt as usual – but judge for yourself
__
Rangers boardroom woes grow as director steps down. Rangers’ boardroom upheaval will continue with the departure of another plc director, Telegraph Sport can reveal.
By Roddy Forsyth
Phil Cartmell, the former CEO of security and defence business, Vega Group, is to quit soon to attend to pressing matters concerning his business interests in Singapore, although it is understood that no date has yet been set for his exit.
Cartmell bought 25,800 shares at 76.5p when the club floated on the AIM market on December 19. The shares closed at 61p on Friday – a rise of 2p on the day – after the announcement that Charles Green would step down as chief executive, following a series of damaging developments.
Meanwhile, one of Cartmell’s fellow plc board members, Craig Mather, will fill Rangers’ vacant chief executive role on an interim basis, while the club begins its search for a permanent successor to Charles Green, who quit last week. The agreement to put Mather in place at this juncture represents a victory for chairman Malcolm Murray, after the Telegraph disclosed that the former chief executive, Martin Bain, had support for a return to Ibrox in the same capacity.
Murray is believed to feel that Bain is tainted by his association with the tenure of Sir David Murray, who sold the club to Craig Whyte nine months before the new owner’s financial manoeuvrings tipped Rangers into insolvency. Bain, a member of the club’s independent scrutiny group at the time, in fact opposed the sale and was ejected from his position once Whyte took over.
It is also understood that Bain had the support of Walter Smith, who values his intimate knowledge of the labyrinthine politics of football in Scotland and the fact that he was in the habit of sitting down with Peter Lawwell – the Celtic CEO, who is widely regarded as the most significant force in the Scottish game – for monthly meetings with the status of an equal.
However, Bain’s chances suffered a serious blow when Scottish businessman, Ian Hart – a lifelong Rangers supporter – agreed with Murray, at which point Cartmell and another director, Bryan Smart, decided to sail with the prevailing wind. Had Hart taken Smith’s view, Bain would have been outstanding favourite to secure the job on a long-term basis.
Green’s abrupt departure came in the aftermath of allegations of racism after he admitted in a newspaper interview that he was in the habit of referring Rangers’ commercial director, Imran Ahmad, as “my little Paki friend.” That prompted disrepute charges to be brought against Green by the SFA, despite his pleading that both men indulged in ethnic banter.
However, Green, who strenuously denies any wrongdoing, was fatally wounded by allegations by Whyte – backed by covert tape recordings – that he and Ahmad had been in league with the former owner during last summer’s takeover by Green’s consortium. Green subsequently revealed that £137,000 had been paid into Ahmad’s mother’s bank account on Whyte’s instructions.
He added: “We were stunned and have tried to give it back to him. But no matter how hard we try to do that he won’t accept receipt of it.”
Telegraph Sport can confirm that the money has now been repaid to the account from which it originated after a delay caused by bank procedures. In the meantime, it is expected that Ahmad will follow Green out of Ibrox once a mutually agreeable settlement is reached.
Looks like a boardroom battle between watp Smith and Murray and the watp (we are the professionals) Stockbridge and Ahmad.
Good be a interesting week.
Robert Coyle says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 08:42
2 0 Rate This
Just another mistake i’m sure
Rangers Security Services Limited
No results for ‘rangers security services’
Showing first five results for ‘rangers security’ in GB
RANGERS SECURITY LIMITED (Dissolved)
RANGERS SECURITY LTD (Dissolved)
RANGERS SECURITY COMPANY LIMITED (Dissolved)
Now if they had used GARRION SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED
Current directors and secretaries
Current Officer Name Appointed
Mr Brian Stockbridge 28-09-2012
Charles Alexander Green 8-09-2012
This company does not have a group structure
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC433635#summary-tab
——————————————————————————————-
did they not set this company up, so that they could do the match day security and keep it
“in house”, therefor making a nice little earner on the side?
jimlarkin says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 09:08
did they not set this company up, so that they could do the match day security and keep it
“in house”, therefor making a nice little earner on the side?
————————————————————-
I think so,don’t know if they got rid of the other security mob though.
Have to say the DR piece just brightened up my morning. An Eckshclushive revelation no less!! I’m loving the 3 vs 3 analogy where it is clearly one side that is feeding the piece (guess who – think cardigans?) whilst avoiding the simple truth that it is clearly the other side that own the damn thing (minor issue of title deeds and multiple police enquiries notwithstanding).
On the restructure stuff Night terror I agree that 2nd place was funding more of the distribution because they were getting too much in the first place, relative to third. How much 1st place get for actually winning the thing is up to ALL the clubs to decide. Defence of the old 1st/2nd divvie was the classic example of abuse of the 11-1 vote albeit, don’t forget, the clubs had to vote that distribution in in the first place. I didn’t see anyone pick up on Donald Findlay’s comment on saturday (who I thought came across quite well incidentally) that a two horse race was bad enough but a one horse race was pointless. OK so lets all bust our proverbials to get back to “bad enough” then Donald! I’m being obtuse I know because he did then state he wanted a non OF (don’t start) team coming through once in a while.
I also believe there’s merit in the 1st place team putting some kind of bond of a further distribution of the original prize pot if the group stages of the CL is reached. One for consideration at least. Oh no, that’s right, we’re not allowed to cherry pick are we!
That doesn’t sound remotely dodgy.
10,000 shares BOUGHT already this morning in dribs and drabs. Either several people are mental, or there’s some “playing the market” going on.
RANGERS MEDIA INVESTMENTS LIMITED
THE RANGERS SHOP LIMITED
RANGERS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
RIFC have named the above 3 companies as subsidiaries of theirs,yet 2 of these are also listed as subs of the old club,and all 3 list MURRAY GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED as the ultimate parent company.I know it can take some of these sites a while to update their own records but it’s been nearly 2 years since Craig Whyte allegedly bought the old club from David Murray.
So why would RIFC claim ownership of something that does’nt appear to belong to them?.
Robert Coyle says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 09:42
0 0 Rate This
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think there are a great many ‘delays’ to obscure the truth. According to what we have learnt this morning Sevco 5088 are a subsidiary of RIFC plc, but Worthingtons claimed them as a subsidiary a few days ago. The truth will be key to the whole takeover debacle
The MSM once again prove they have no inside knowledge, both papers below agree Murray & Cardigan are on the same side but…
From the DR…
Mather’s emergence has raised the level of alert for Smith’s side. They suspect he was hand-picked by Stockbridge and Imran Ahmad, who are still in position despite Green’s removal.
From The DT…
The agreement to put Mather in place at this juncture represents a victory for chairman Malcolm Murray.
Dear oh dear oh dear. One of them might be right but its clearly all guesswork.
y4rmy says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 09:25
2 0 Rate This
Phil Cartmell, the former CEO of security and defence business, Vega Group, is to quit soon to attend to pressing matters concerning his business interests in Singapore
That doesn’t sound remotely dodgy.
——–
@y4rmy
Perhaps he just wants out. Seems on paper to be a proper business type. Any association with what’s going on might not look too clever on his CV. Seems he wasn’t one of the 1p-share crowd either. I wonder what other renumeration he got for his short stint?
Tommy says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 08:31
1 0 Rate This
More comedy gold in today’s DR from the Sportswriter of The Year
“He could do worse than to start by demanding certain documentation from Stockbridge and Ahmad. Like solid proof of the current state of the club’s bank balance, for example, because although Rangers should have more than £20million in the account following December’s share sale, not even Murray has been given sight of the evidence.”
++++++++++++++++++++
Doesn’t this piece of nonsense just highlight the abysmal level of journalism on the Record? Sportswriter of the year? Is somebody having a laugh?
Even if there was £21m in the bank at 31/12, what does this clown think has been happening in the 4 months since then? I have a list-
1) January purchase of Edmiston House and Albion car park- £2.5m
2) Repayment of oldco football debts- £2m
3) Running costs and wages, 4x £2.5m= £10m
Leaving £6.5m in the bank by 30th April, plus any matchday income so far this year- say £1m.
So the most that can possibly be in the bank at 30th April is £7.5m.
That’s only 3 months worth of wages and running costs. Of course the true position may be a lot worse, if some senior people are due hefty bonuses for the season’s stellar achievements.And trips around the world for Green, plus scouting trips to Central America don’t come cheap either.
Can this business survive until the season ticket money comes in? Probably, but even if they then manage to pull in £15m, that’s only 6 months wages and running costs. Unless a billionare with off the radar wealth arrives quickly, or a real axeman begins to cut costs in half, this show will be over by Christmas.
Of course I have no idea (and unlike the journos, I know it!) so you are probably correct. I can’t help but notice that Singapore keeps cropping up, though.
I see Graham S on twitter is lambasting the new Scottish Champions 😀
————
“Celtic’s “Always Has Been. Always Will Be. Celtic” is blatant goading of Rangers/liquidation. Not sure this is wise club policy.”
————
Obviously what they should have written was: “Celtic then, Celtic now, Celtic forever” (preferably after a liquidation).
Danish Pastry says: Monday, April 22, 2013 at 09:55
I wonder what other remuneration he got for his short stint?
============================
From the Prospectus
2.3.4 Phillip Cartmell
Under a letter of appointment dated 7 December 2012 (but to be effective on Admission), the Company employed Phillip Cartmell as a Non-Executive Director of the Company for a salary of £40,000 per annum and all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses reasonably and properly incurred. The agreement is terminable by the Company or Mr Cartmell for cause or on 1 months’ notice. Standard confidentiality provisions also apply following the date of this letter. The agreement is governed by Scots law.
———————————-
So £40,000 a year with one month’s notice by either party
When will AIm step in and instruct these RIFC Spivs to explain themselves?
Thousands of decent Bears bought into RIFC thinking these guys had nothing to do with Whyte
If its another Spiv that replaces Green, Murray and Cardigan will have to walk or they will get tarred with the same brush
Gilmour was qouted today in some lying rag or other saying that under the much voted for 12-12-18 or bust proposal his club gave up £100,000 a year and in proportion Celtic gave up £10,000 (based on turnover). That doesn’t sound fair and Celtic need to do better than that if Scottish Football is to be saved before Celtic leg it.
……………………………………………….
Celtic could start by letting the visiting team keep the ticket money from travelling fans? That way its in the other clubs own interests to encourage a larger travelling support, it would spread more money through the game, improve atsmosphere, fans may travel as they dont feel they are unfairly giving money to the big fish and celtic would still benifit from catering etc.
At least a start without costing much to celtic?
————————————————————-
haud the bus….rules should be applied evenly, not based on who you are
what if, for example, celtic return to the mid table mediocrity of the 90’s and are 4th/5th in the league with crowds anywhere between 18k – 25k?
Should they still give away the income from visiting fans?
Should the team now finishing 1st get less income?
Stop talking about what celtic (or any other club) are giving up (or not) and how much it represents to them based on their turnover – these things will change.
All this type of argument does is divide fans – and clubs – on a working solution.
IMO the current distribution model is flawed – top heavy and should be changed. If Celtic win the league, they get the agreed sum, if Hearts win it, so do they – there is no further tweaking of the numbers because they have a few quid in the bank (or not, as may be the case with hearts!!! LOL, sorry!)
Fix the distribution model so it is equitable – end of argument.
As Neepheid says
Green told STV that there was less than £20m in the bank just last week but sports writer of the year SWOTY Jackson still perpetrates the myth that they are a cash rich club with £20m+
Does he think Rfc* run on hot air just like him ?
This 5088 – RIFC subsidy loop –
Ouroboros?
subsidiary not subsidy,
fat fingers!!!
Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 10:26
The serpent eating its own tail or the pitchfork-wielding debatably undead villagers from the later Resident Evil saga episodes?
Acht, never mind, it doesn’t matter.
easyJambo says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 10:09
3 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says: Monday, April 22, 2013 at 09:55
I wonder what other remuneration he got for his short stint?
============================
From the Prospectus
2.3.4 Phillip Cartmell
Under a letter of appointment dated 7 December 2012 (but to be effective on Admission), the Company employed Phillip Cartmell as a Non-Executive Director of the Company for a salary of £40,000 per annum and all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses reasonably and properly incurred. The agreement is terminable by the Company or Mr Cartmell for cause or on 1 months’ notice. Standard confidentiality provisions also apply following the date of this letter. The agreement is governed by Scots law.
———————————-
So £40,000 a year with one month’s notice by either party
———-
Cor blimey guv, as they say!
I suppose money well spent if Cartmell’s name gave some credibility when looking for investors. Otherwise all these directorships look like benevolent contributions to the rich and needy 🙂
Night Terror says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 10:50
The serpent eating its own tail or the pitchfork-wielding debatably undead villagers from the later Resident Evil saga episodes?
Acht, never mind, it doesn’t matter.
=========================================
I wasn’t even aware of the second reference!
Made me smile though!
Spiers ; “ Everybody misses really the Old Firm. ”
I doubt the young women of Scotland and Strathclyde Polis(as they were), would agree with you Graham;
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/old-firm-absence-leads-to-drop-in-domestic-violence-1-2841538
Quick poll to see if we agree with Graham
do you miss the “old firm?”
thumbs up -yes thumbs down- no
then we’ll see what everybody on here thinks
Lifted from RM?
22 April 2013
Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers” or the “Company”)
Director Declaration
In accordance with AIM Rule 17 and further to the Company’s admission document dated 7 December 2012, the Company confirms that in addition to the directorships disclosed in the admission document, Charles Green and Brian Stockbridge held directorships in the following companies, each of which is a subsidiary of the Company, at the time of publication of the document:
Charles Green
Rangers Retail Limited
SEVCO 5088 Limited
The Rangers Football Club Limited
Rangers Financial Services Limited
Rangers Matchday Services Limited
Rangers Media Investments Limited
Rangers Youth Development Limited
RANGERS.CO.UK Limited
Rangers Media Limited
Rangers Security Services Limited
The Rangers Shop Limited
Brian Stockbridge
The Rangers Football Club Limited
Rangers Financial Services Limited
Rangers Matchday Services Limited
Rangers Media Investments Limited
Rangers Youth Development Limited
RANGERS.CO.UK Limited
The Rangers Shop Limited
Rangers Retail Limited
Rangers Security Services Limited
Rangers Media Limited
http://m.londonstock….entId=11557259
Proper link to above
http://m.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/mobile/news/detail.html?announcementId=11557259
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 10:23
======================
You are right of course but I think the problem is we are all (mostly) stuck ourselves with the perception Celtic will always come on top for years to come and this is why their name is given rather than saying “the top team at the time”.
One of the things that has to change is we have to start thinking that things needn’t stay the same forever but that they can be changed if enough people have the will to make it happen.
Phil MacGiollaBhain@Pmacgiollabhain6m
When Charlie was doing the #Sevco deal was he too hasty in signing the paperwork?
A certain QC seems to think so.
Game set and assets to CW
monsieurbunny says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 11:20
There would need to be general agreement of what people wanted to make happen, rather than just a will to change whatever apparently unsatisfactory situation we are currently in.
Change for change’s sake isn’t necessarily good, although I would argue it usually is. It is, however, universally hard to agree upon and implement.
For example – there are several basics that I can imagine would be suggested as the aim of “change”. In no particular order (numbers purely to aid reference to them)
1 – Firmer regulation of finances
2 – Increased “fairness”
3 – Increased competition
4 – Increased income to the SPL/Scottish league
5 – Better performance in Europe by clubs
6 – Better quality Scottish players
7 – Improvement in national coefficient
8 – Rationalising of number of professional clubs
9 – Reduction in regulating bodies
10 – Improved governance
11 – Executive accountability
12 – Transparency & Openness
13 – Umm, that’s it for now
Many of these are very vague aspirational statements that find general agreement until the specifics of how they might be achieved are discussed. At that point, when it becomes clear that many of these objectives involve some losers or some gaining more than others, agreement disintegrates.
monsieurbunny says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 11:20
0 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 10:23
======================
You are right of course but I think the problem is we are all (mostly) stuck ourselves with the perception Celtic will always come on top for years to come and this is why their name is given rather than saying “the top team at the time”.
———————————————
i thought fans were full of optimism and hope? that paints a sad view of the world. If that is true, i’m surprised any bother to go along at all 🙁
If the finance model and structure is right, then there is no reason why MORE (not all) teams can’t compete.
Obviously the team with most money/support is going to have most resources to field the best team.
But i believe we can restructure the game to narrow that gap and at least give other teams some chance.
How we achieve that should be based on a fairer set up/model of financial distribution – and it should not be based on simply saying we’ll take x% of the income from ANY ONE club.
As things stand, any changes would have the biggest impact on the richest clubs – and right now that would be Celtic. But in 5-10-20 years, who knows, even Sevco might have sorted themselves out by then to retain top spot!
haud the bus….rules should be applied evenly, not based on who you are
what if, for example, celtic return to the mid table mediocrity of the 90′s and are 4th/5th in the league with crowds anywhere between 18k – 25k?
Should they still give away the income from visiting fans?
Should the team now finishing 1st get less income?
Stop talking about what celtic (or any other club) are giving up (or not) and how much it represents to them based on their turnover – these things will change.
All this type of argument does is divide fans – and clubs – on a working solution.
IMO the current distribution model is flawed – top heavy and should be changed. If Celtic win the league, they get the agreed sum, if Hearts win it, so do they – there is no further tweaking of the numbers because they have a few quid in the bank (or not, as may be the case with hearts!!! LOL, sorry!)
Fix the distribution model so it is equitable – end of argument.
———————————————————
Whilst I agree with that I don’t believe that the unevenness of the last decade+ has been entirely down to the distribution model. There has been a bigger problem.
The bigger problem is that it has been all too easy for the Old Firm (excuse the reference to the OF as part of this point is historic) to keep us diddies in our place by taking our best players as soon as anyone looks like starting to get a semblance of a decent side together. The New Firm operated in just as uneven a financial climate yet brought competitive teams together through canny purchases and bringing youth through AND being able to keep the side together long enough to create a fledgling team into a winning one.
Of course, the environment is different now with Bosman et al and you can’t tie a player in the way you used to (and I would never advocate the return to the “Jim McLean special” contract!).
Now I’m sure the OF fans on here will argue that they buy the players and no one forces Clubs hands, etc but It’s not really the reality of the situation. Too often those players are bought not to strengthen the first team but to weaken the opposition. It has been possible because the OF have maintained very large squad sizes, in comparison to the rest of the SPL, but all too often those players double (or more) their wages for 2 or 3 years but don’t develop and disappear into obscurity.
I’m not saying that the OF shouldn’t be allowed to buy other SPL players but it is hard to argue that Scottish Football has benefited from all those players that have rotted in the reserves and playing the odd league cup tie rather than developing into the players they could be.
The debate about financial distribution echoes one that took place on RTC many months ago and is highly relevant to the health of Scottish Football.
The proposed distribution change along with the 12/12/18 proposal was an improvement on the existing c 1/3 allocation to the top two clubs but with the top slot giving up only just over £300K per annum while the second gave up over £600K, it was strikingly ungenerous for what the top team would lose.
I sometimes try to get myself into the mindset of a “big team” supporter but struggle so help me out here. On the one hand Rangers were derided for virtually cheating their way to years of success through employing a highly aggressive form of employment tax avoidance which ultimately may or may not be legal. If it is legal, is it so different from the commercial maximising of profits that has seen the end of split gate receipts, the c1/3 income allocation to the top two clubs and a 5% agency fee imposed on smaller clubs sale of tickets to your supporters?
How much of a competition do you actually want the SPL to be? Rangers may be mocked for their player budget this year to win the Third Division but is the disparity between their budget and other teams in that Division so different to the SPL, whereby Celtic will spend a minimum of c10 times what the next team does on the player budget? OK, congratulations on winning the SPL but as a competition it’s not so far removed from the odds when shooting fish in a barrel is it? How much mileage is there in a competition where the next 30, 60, 100 years look likely to perpetuate the current status quo, where currently one, maybe in the future two clubs can win it?
Oh look the sun came up again this morning. Thrilling isn’t it.
Celtic could show a genuine interest in some degree of encouragement to the spirit of competition in the SPL, improving the quality of the product and ultimately potentially making it more attractive for all (including sponsors and tv companies). To date I only see a focus on looking after number one. Is there a capacity for a more enlightened view or just a desire to see the competition so devalued as to try and make the case for moving to another league overwhelming? I don’t expect a return to ground sharing or even an allocation of Champions League money but a genuine attempt at a more level allocation of funding in the SPL would be a step in the right direction.
So may I be the first to congratulate Celtic on winning the SPL for 2014. Indeed, 2015, 2016, 2017 while I’m at it. Maybe you’ll get 10 in a row. Maybe 20. But forgive me for suggesting there is something slightly hollow in winning a competition that is so weighted in favour of one team as to be in reality a competition in name only.
@Taysider.
> Standing Ovation <
News
Rangers claim control of firm in legal dispute with Craig Whyte
By Mike Farrell 22 April 2013 11:15 BST
Rangers: The club described Sevco 5088 as a ‘subsidiary’ of the parent company.© SNS Group
Rangers have claimed control of a company at the heart of a legal dispute with Craig Whyte.
In an announcement to the stock exchange on Monday, Sevco 5088 Limited is described as a “subsidiary” of Rangers International Football Club plc.
Mr Whyte claims the firm was established on his behalf last year and gives him a legal hold over Rangers’ assets, including Ibrox and Murray Park. He claims Charles Green was enlisted as a director of Sevco 5088 to act as a “front” for him in an attempt to regain control of Rangers, which Mr Green denies.
According to the AIM notification, Mr Green held a directorship in Sevco 5088 on December 7 last year, the day the AIM admission document was published.
Mr Green previously stated in an interview with STV that he had “handed back” the firm to Mr Whyte after the company was no longer needed once a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) was destined to fail. No documentation confirming Mr Green’s resignation from Sevco 5088 has been filed with Companies House.
According to the share issue prospectus published last December, Sevco 5088 was a “related party” to Rangers International, of which Mr Green was the “sole shareholder”. Mr Green said in a statement earlier this month that he “was the sole director of Sevco 5088 until he resigned and became the founder director of Sevco Scotland” which was incorporated on May 29 last year.
The retrospective directorate declaration to the exchange comes after Mr Green announced his intention to step down as Rangers chief executive with immediate effect on Friday, citing “negative publicity” surrounding his links to Mr Whyte.
It also emerged after former Rangers owner Mr Whyte instructed lawyers to contest the lodging of termination notices with Companies House for director appointments of himself and associate Aidan Earley with Sevco 5088.
The online documents were filed last week, after Mr Whyte confirmed he was seeking to use the company to seize control of the club’s assets. Mr Whyte is adamant the termination move was not made by himself or Mr Earley, while he has also stated that it does not alter his ownership or role as a director of Sevco 5088. The businessman’s lawyers have contacted Companies House over the lodging of the termination forms.
Documents
STV revealed documents were filed with Companies House which appeared to show Ibrox chief executive Mr Green’s signature on the Sevco 5088 directorships of Mr Whyte and Mr Earley on May 9, 2012. Days later, Sevco 5088 signed an exclusive agreement for the club’s assets with administrators Duff and Phelps, although they were eventually transferred to an unrelated entity, Sevco Scotland Limited.
The electronic forms filed last Tuesday stated that the directorships of the pair had been terminated on the same day they were appointed last year.
However, a spokesman for the former Rangers owner said: “Mr Whyte has noted the attempt to remove himself and Mr Earley as directors of Sevco 5088.
“Mr Green has publicly acknowledged that he resigned as a director and transferred the company some time ago. The Companies House record is not the legal determinant of who owns the company and who are directors. This issue will form part of the forthcoming legal case.”
Companies House said that only people with access to the online authorisation code for the company could have terminated the appointment, while it was unable to clarify who had lodged them. The e-forms relating to the moves do not name the individual behind them, while no signatures are present on the forms as they were submitted via the registrar’s website.
Sevco 5088
STV contacted Rangers and Mr Green for comment on the development, but they did not provide a response for publication. Mr Green is still listed as a Sevco 5088 director on the Companies House website and signed off on a proposal to dissolve the firm on December 27 last year, weeks after Mr Whyte sent him a letter warning of legal action. London legal firm Field Fisher Waterhouse, which established Sevco 5088 as an off-the-shelf company in March last year, declined to comment on the move.
The registered address of the firm was recently changed from Field Fisher Waterhouse’s Vine Street office to one in London’s Skyline Village, which is associated with Mr Whyte’s businesses. However, last Wednesday an e-filing with Companies House reverted it to lawyer’s office.
STV recently revealed that Mr Green admitted asking Mr Whyte for £25,000 to pay the legal fees of Field Fisher Waterhouse. The outgoing Rangers chief executive claimed the cheque bounced, however STV obtained proof to suggest that it cleared and the money was paid out of a business account associated with Mr Earley.
Rangers announced that they had instructed lawyers to respond to the claims of Mr Whyte and Mr Earley, while they also said they would be preparing a file to submit to Police Scotland in relation to the dispute. The club also informed the stock exchange in London that an independent inquiry into the conduct of Mr Green and Imran Ahmad was being carried out, days before the chief executive announced he was stepping down.
Last week Worthington Group plc, which has close links to Mr Whyte and Mr Earley, announced to the stock exchange that it would be funding the legal action against Rangers after receiving advice that it had a “prima facie case”. Mr Whyte has sold a 26% stake in his firm Law Financial Limited, which he claims owns Sevco 5088 as well as several other companies, under the £250,000 deal.
Oh good – time for Marty and his playbook
As a long time follower of this blog (and RTC) and infrequent contributer I have observed that it has been all too easy to focus in on Rangers cheating as the root of all ills.
Now I won’t dispute for a second that they did cheat and it was very damaging (all but killed my Club) but we shouldn’t lose site of the fact that for much of the SPL’s existence that Celtic have been in cahoots with them to keep the diddies down. I don’t entirely blame the OF for this as the other 10 Chairmen consigned themselves to a life of living on scraps when they signed up for setting up the SPL the way it is and they should take as much of the blame.
However, I would also argue that the OF’s squeezing of the rest over the last decade+ has been counter productive. Making the league less competitive has made Celtic and Rangers weaker – through lack of competition week in week out; has contributed to the falling UEFA coefficient as all the other get weaker and contribute ever more embarrassing preliminary tie defeats; which in turns made it harder for Celtic and Rangers to compete (or even reach) the Champions League.
A far cry from the days when Scottish Football was competitive, when the OF were not a guaranteed 1/2 and Scottish Clubs were in Europe after Christmas and Scotland qualified for major tournaments.
long time lurker…first time poster.
First of all i would like to thank all posters of RTC and TSFM for their time and contributions to the blogs as it has been an education
Following the debacle of Whyte`s takeover, the SFA brought in a ruling that the clubs were to be responsible for the fit and proper checks done on potential owners.
Duff and Phelps then proposed Charles Green as a fit and proper person while the were acting as the administrators of rangers.
This means that it was rangers that gave the assurances of Charles Green`s credentials to run a scottish football club.
This is when it gets a wee bit messy.[IMO]
Was it old rangers who gave assurances?
Was it new rangers who gave assurances[prior to getting special dispensation for a license to play football?]
Either way …how would this work out legally?
What were the punishments for the club [either old or new] that the SFA could have if it was found that either or both were found to have concluded wrongly that the Charles Green [or any other person ] was a fit and proper person???
Or will it be Duff and Phelps who will shoulder the blame giving the rangers fans[old or new club]
reason to say it wasn`t the “clubs fault”……think we have heard that one before!
On old firm weekends,not only does domestic violence soar but Accident/Emergency Depts. in Hospitals have to deal with a massive increase in admissions.
Robert Coyle says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 09:23
jimlarkin says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 09:08
did they not set this company up, so that they could do the match day security and keep it
“in house”, therefor making a nice little earner on the side?
————————————————————-
I think so,don’t know if they got rid of the other security mob though.
————————————————————————————————————————
Is it not the case Robert that old contracts would have died with the liquidation of the old company. Was that not the case with the Audi cars deal. That being the case then Sevco had no obligation to honour a contract with a separate, liquidated company. They were free to negotiate their own contracts with whomever they liked. Yet more proof that it is a new company….
Taysider says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 11:38
——————–
It is not often I will find myself supporting Celtic in a discussion, but why should Celtic not look after number 1? Afterall, I have spent the last week defending St Mirren and Ross County for looking after number 1.
Celtic do not owe the other clubs a living – thats up to them. The real issue lies with the size of Celtic – they are too big for Scottish football in the current sitaution. As ar Rangers if they ever sort themselves out.
Scottish football will never be competitive in a league sense until Celtic and Rangers our out of Scotland. Until then, it could well be 10 in a row or more.
The other issue, is Celtic are in the same position as the “little” clubs in SPL, but in the context of Europe – for Celtic to even contemplate competing they have to maximise their revenue and maximise value for money in spending. Giving up more money does not assist that goal.