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.
Armageddon!!
Radio Clyde SSB tonight proclaiming that Celtic have announced they will be closing the upper tier of the Lisbon Lions stand next season
i’ve not seen anything on celtic official site or forums/twitter
But SSB seem pretty certain this is the case
Anyone hear anything (other than what i have already heard on SSB)
raminta Moonbeam QC says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 15:58
51 0 Rate This
@corsica1968
Penny dropped according to my blue knight; accepted CW has true claim on assets. Murray & Mather desperately searching for £30m cash!
………………………………………………………….
Can someone tell Corsica to let his Blue Knight contact know….according to Mr mather they still have all the IPO money….10-15 million apparentley…
timtim says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 20:02
15
1
Rate This
Charles statement was not ill advised
It was a carefully thought out manoeuvre by the President of the Tufty club
that gave just enough political incorrectness without being illegal that allowed
Charles his escape route
—————————–
I’d argue that Mr Ahmad being complicit to the whole affair is probably more morally-reprehensible. But, cripes, that fine is pitiful. And the (utterly unnecessary) response is worse.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 20:51
…………………………………..
For what reason?
So what?
The scare mongers will be in over drive soon…SEVCO promotion is now being overtly demanded in a very desperate almost in a stampy foot 5 year old way….knowing that the only way out of their financial asphyxiation…is to be unfairly promoted into a greater level of income….
Scottish football doesn’t need them….they are desperate for Scottish footballs money….
They will lie… threaten and scare monger anyone and everyone into what they so desperatly want…YOUR money..and the money generated inthe SPL….they don’t give 2 flying f**ks about Scottish football…they just want your cash and they will say whatever it takes to get it…
The lowest of the low with no morals…or shame…
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 20:51
Armageddon!!
Radio Clyde SSB tonight proclaiming that Celtic have announced they will be closing the upper tier of the Lisbon Lions stand next season
i’ve not seen anything on celtic official site or forums/twitter
But SSB seem pretty certain this is the case
Anyone hear anything (other than what i have already heard on SSB)
==============
According to Twitter tonights SSB was the most anti Celtic show produced by Radio Clyde so far. There seems to be a willingness, when not talking up Sevco, to have a go at Celtic. The truth seems to be a victim most of the time on this show. Look at the regular guests and listen to their personal opinions. All along the lines of Mark Hately’s latest nonsense.
There will be some upheavel at Celtic Park to accomodate the new Disabled and Family sections but what was beeing spouted tonight was just ill informed MSM sh0ite aimed at playing up the Sevco leg up agenda.
paulmac2 says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 20:56
0 0 Rate This
raminta Moonbeam QC says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 15:58
51 0 Rate This
@corsica1968
Penny dropped according to my blue knight; accepted CW has true claim on assets. Murray & Mather desperately searching for £30m cash!
………………………………………………………….
Can someone tell Corsica to let his Blue Knight contact know….according to Mr mather they still have all the IPO money….10-15 million apparentley…
—————————————————————————–
yeah, i’m struggling with this rumour……Whyte won’t want to be a landlord, so he will be looking to sell.
he needs £18M to pay the ticketus case against him and he’ll want something for his time and trouble
Sevco have £10-20M still in the bank and should be able to raise another few million from the original consortium backers – plus the likes of the Blue Knights and other rich fans
So, they should be able to simply buy the assets and thats it – job done. They have a stadium, CW has gone away. Lets not pretend the SFA are going to get involved if it turns out CW was involved and the membership was transferred based on a tissue of lies.
So, whats the problem….surely no one is worried about the fact that their costs are greater than their income – it’s never bothered them before. And it doesn’t bother them now – all that changes if they have to pay off CW is the timescale for liquidation again.
mullach says:
Tuesday, April 30, 2013 at 23:19
Unofficial TSFM thumbs up poll
Investigative journalist of the year
Results
Phil Mac Giolla Bhain 149
Paul McConville 143
Alex Thomson 126
Mark Daly 99
Thanks to all who took part
On the SSB effort tonight Jim Delah*nt. Gordon Dalziel and Mark Guidi would not comment on any positive calls regarding Celtic, talked up the blue ‘team’ and superdooperally and at one point Guidi said if the SPL chairmen had to vote again cheats fc would have been in the SPL cause that’s why attendances are down ???? Utter cr@p this time last month Guidi was praising CG to the high heavens ?? And as for diddy Dalziel, he is almost as pathetic as keevins 🙂 horrible wee men ……… On saying all that!! I love listening because they are starting to squirm tee hee!!
Brenda says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 21:38
===========
Brenda. You can actually feel the pain from these guys. Disgracefully one sided guestlist.
carfin and brenda
. . . friday night’s SSB will be just as painfull on the old lugs.
keevins and BfDJ are on to share more of their infinate “wisdom”.
[ 2 sets of blikners,1 brain cell…0 idea]
timtim says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 20:02
Charles statement was not ill advised
It was a carefully thought out manoeuvre by the President of the Tufty club
that gave just enough political incorrectness without being illegal that allowed
Charles his escape route
——
Very true. The man had been trying his utmost to speak enough nonsense to get himself discredited for months. He must have been exasperated that it was all being taken seriously. He had to pull the Alf Garnett stunt to lubricate the hinges of the exit door.
I imagine he’d already lined up a tale along the lines of a quiet fondness for joining the strapping U-17 lads in the post-match plunge-bath with his magic sponge, just in case it didn’t work.
I’m not sure how the Rangers fanbase sees him now but it is notable, for such an outspoken fellow, that he seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth.
CF
Loving the pain 🙂 Mark Guidi finding it more and more difficult to hold his temper, sounded almost gleeful when he was told by a caller that part of Celtic park was to be closed 🙂 but couldn’t contain his joy at the prospect of ibrokes being filled to the rafters on Monday 🙂 well they have to pay the remaining staff somehow!!!! 🙂
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 20:51
Radio Clyde SSB tonight proclaiming that Celtic have announced they will be closing the upper tier of the Lisbon Lions stand next season
===================================================
Then they proceeded to wax lyrical about the forthcoming ‘family day’ at Ibrox on Saturday, before musing how Sevco might have coped in the SPL this season if ‘they’d been allowed to keep all their top players’.
I suppose it would be a whole lot worse if they were biased mind you.
duplesis says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 18:05
1 1 Rate This
@Hirsuite Pursuit
D&P don’t set out the basis of that advice, but my guess is that D&P believe they had grounds to defend any demand for payment by Ticketus in the sense that the Ticketus contract with oldco may have been a pacta illicita – presumably under the umbrella of “financial asistance.”
The passage you are quoting from doesn’t say there never was a contract with Ticketus, just that ticketus’s claim – they believe – is unenforceable. At the CoS, D&P clearly outlined the Ticketus arrangement, and confirmed that arrangement was a sale of tickets by oldco followed by a loan of the proceeds to Wavetower, so the contractual arrangement between oldco and Ticketus seems to have already been accepted by D&P.
The fact Ticketus don’t have an enforceable claim against oldco (if D&P’s interpretation turns out to be true) doesn’t mean Whyte must have the right to claim the £18m from oldco.
Likewise, the fact Ticketus are pursuing Whyte and his companies doesn’t support that hypothesis. Whyte and his companies gave guarantees which were called up by Ticketus after oldco went into administration. If Ticketus can’t get the money back from oldco (which they clearly can’t given the oldco’s insolvency, quite apart from any question of the enforceability of the contract), then they are entitled to call in the guarantees and seek payment that way – which is what they are doing. Their actions don’t tell us any more than that.
In the meantime, they have also obtained an award of damages against Whyte for £17.7m for fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation, which was a separate head of claim in their action.
That being said, I quite agree that if the floating charge did secure a debt to Whyte/his company, that debt relates to the oldco, and if validly crystallised would wipe out any payment to the unsecured creditors.
As I mentioned above, Whyte does acquire a claim against oldco as a right of relief in the event he is found liable to Ticketus under the guarantees and pays out under the guarantees, but the chances of the latter part seem pretty low. If that is how Whyte acquires claim ultimately then it isn’t secured by the floating charge though, as the guarantees were not called up until after oldco went into administration, and so the debt post-dates administration.
=========================================================
Financial assistance? Mr Whyte bought his shares for the princely sum of £1. I cannot see how financial assistance plays any part. This has been thrown into the mix several times before; but is simply a red herring. Nothing more.
On the question of the contractual arrangements with Ticketus, you are, I think, working on the premise that Ticketus provided funds directly to Rangers FC. They did not: or at least, I do not believe it to be so.
My interpretation of events is this:
We know (because D&P told us) the money from Ticketus was not placed in the Rangers FC bank accounts; instead, the finance was channeled via “RFC Group”, So when the Ticketus payment was made, RFC Group (Wavetower) – not Rangers FC – bore a substantial debt to Ticketus. This debt, we know was supported by a range of corporate and personal guarantees. However, the principle consequence of the RFC Group debt was that Rangers FC (the subsidiary) inherited the contractual liability of providing Ticketus with a large number of season tickets in future years.
RFC Group used the Ticketus cash to purchase the BoS’s existing Rangers FC debt of £18m. At that point Rangers FC owed its parent company at least £18m. Security for this debt was still via the floating charge originally created in favour of BoS and now transferred to RFC Group.
Each season, as they were issued, the tickets Rangers FC were contractually bound to sell on behalf of Ticketus would have had the effect of reducing the debt RFC Group purchased from BoS.
A few things to remember:
Rangers FC bank debt did not disappear – it was simply reassigned.
The financial position of Rangers FC was not unfairly prejudiced by these arrangements.
Rangers FC never did issue the future season tickets on behalf of Ticketus – therefore the debt between Rangers FC and RFC Group was not reduced.
Ticketus had the option to claim damages for breach of contract. Had they done so, they could have created a financial liability and became unsecured creditors of Rangers FC. If Ticketus had become unsecured creditors, Rangers FC could have sought relief from RFC Group and extinguished the debt secured by the floating charge.
Ticketus, as I understand it,,have made no claim on the administrators – though have reserved their position in respect of liquidation.
As far as I can tell (from all the available evidence) Rangers FC (the original club) still owe RFC Group around £18m – possibly more, as I think there was also repayment of an overdraft of circa £3m.
There is no doubt that RFC Group held a floating charge over the assets of the company. I would be absolutely astounded if that floating charge and the debt it secures is held to be invalid.
To return to my earlier point (and why I think all of this is important): the sale of assets undervalue to a company owned by Craig Whyte makes perfect sense if he was prepared to waive his secured debt. It gives the unsecured creditors a small return.
Selling the assets undervalue to company unconnected to Craig Whyte will mean that he will pursue his claim – and in my opinion win – and the unsecured creditors will get nothing.
It is for this reason that I think that the circumstances of the sale will be of great interest to BDO and why that sale is much more likely now to be undone.
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 18:07
19 0 i
Rate This
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 16:14
manandboy says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 15:19
Craig Whyte joins the Granton darts club paying the membership fee of £2.
=======
Has he been asked to sit on the BOARD?
I’ll get ma flights..
= = = = =
Are Granton darts club ‘wee arra peepeeell!!’?
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 16:37
Apols BD – other stuff on
Start: I think goosy right on principle – HP too
going further we don`t know the t&c`s of the BoS FC
There was a plan – Must have been – Stupid otherwise
But it hasn`t worked – not enough cash in – financial magic beans don`t count
They need to unwind this honestly for their own people and quickly – if they don`t well…..?
Up to them now
The `Establishment` [aka legals and media coining it] will keep the circus running to feast
The `Establishment` [football] with a long pedigree of booze, betting and pies – do what they`re told
The establishment of sciences, arts medicine, education, sports, public service – couldn`t care less
As said up to them – well maybe it was – they might have left it too late in their arrogance & defiance
Brenda says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 21:57
Loving the pain Mark Guidi finding it more and more difficult to hold his temper, sounded almost gleeful when he was told by a caller that part of Celtic park was to be closed but couldn’t contain his joy at the prospect of ibrokes being filled to the rafters on Monday well they have to pay the remaining staff somehow!!!!
—————————————————————————————————————
Brenda, meanwhile on RM, they are saying part of the ground will be closed due to lack of tickets sold. They reckon only 30000 approx and the excuses for not going are top notch.
“Its 2pm on a Monday FFS”
“Its a holiday and buses are nae regular”
“I don’t know any of the Man U players”
These are some of them but I laughed at the remark –
“Do we know how many are coming up from Manchester?”
Reply was – “Aye, 11 plus a sub” 🙂
HirsutePursuit says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 22:06
duplesis says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 18:05
1 1 Rate This
@Hirsuite Pursuit
Rangers FC never did issue the future season tickets on behalf of Ticketus – therefore the debt between Rangers FC and RFC Group was not reduced
======================================
Surely Ticketus’s repayments started in July 2011 after the ST money started to come in. Did CW not increase the debt in May 2011 by adding another year to the contract which gave him the breathing space to get the 2011/12 ST money in.
Interesting. I was just looking at the comments on the Craig Whyte and Charles Green stories on The Scotsman website…
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/sfa-sues-craig-whyte-over-unpaid-fine-1-2918072
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/charles-green-fined-over-racist-comments-1-2918081
…when the comments disappeared. Is it just me?
There is some concurrence on Twitter this evening that the Sevconians are trying to stagger on until the close season, before things go ka-boom. Not long now. Anyone know why they haven’t put season tickets on sale down Edmiston Drive yet?
ecobhoy says: Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 17:04
——–
That signed 2012/13 Sevco top could end up being a real collectors item – double world record holders – the highest paid club to win the third division ever and the newest club to win the third division ever. I’m sure the winner could get a few bob for it on ebay.
Make what you want of this conversation right now on twitter:
Paul Brennan 5088 @CQN 30 Apr
@Sir_Barold_QC @junglebhoy60 That’s OG’s news but, as with all these plays, the season needs to end..
@CQN seems wierd no one is getting (reporting maybe) the season should/needs to end stuff. ?? Dejavu. @sir_barold_qc @junglebhoy60
@JohnMcLean_HS67 @Sir_Barold_QC @junglebhoy60 Y. No one can formally know anything before season ends n there is time for panic
@CQN @Sir_Barold_QC @JohnMcLean_HS67 @junglebhoy60 why is season ending so significant??
@stephenwatson9 @Sir_Barold_QC @JohnMcLean_HS67 @junglebhoy60 they would rather finish the season than fold with one game left #indignity
@CQN @stephenwatson9 @Sir_Barold_QC @JohnMcLean_HS67 @junglebhoy60 I’m quite happy to wait till the close season to see them fold.
@HenryClarson @CQN @stephenwatson9 @JohnMcLean_HS67 @junglebhoy60 Same here.
Expand
campsiejoe campsiejoe @campsiejoe 5m
@Sir_Barold_QC @HenryClarson @CQN @stephenwatson9 @JohnMcLean_HS67 @junglebhoy60 Don’t care when they fold, just as long as they do
Araminta Moonbeam QC says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 22:30
0 0 Rate This
There is some concurrence on Twitter this evening that the
Sevconians are trying to stagger on until the close season, before things go ka-boom. Not long now. Anyone know why they haven’t put season tickets on sale down Edmiston Drive yet?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah. It’s because they don’t know who owns the club.
And that’s not true. They know. They just can’t bring themselves to admit it in public.
You know I’m beginning to think Craigy is bomb proof, in that he has tapes and documents pertaining to the period prior to the 1£ sale. Hence the don’t give a monkeys stance to well almost every setback or problem.
I think there are individuals and institutions in more trouble than him.
tomtomaswell says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 22:27
0 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 22:06
duplesis says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 18:05
1 1 Rate This
@Hirsuite Pursuit
Rangers FC never did issue the future season tickets on behalf of Ticketus – therefore the debt between Rangers FC and RFC Group was not reduced
======================================
Surely Ticketus’s repayments started in July 2011 after the ST money started to come in. Did CW not increase the debt in May 2011 by adding another year to the contract which gave him the breathing space to get the 2011/12 ST money in.
=========================================
Yes – of course – I should have made it clear that I was referring to the position at the point of the last transaction.
I don’t think that by adding the extra year it made a significant change in the debt position between Rangers FC and RFC Group.
Listened to SSB for a wee while tonight.
Load of Bollocks.
Maybe we should let hem know the rumours flying around tonight on twitter.
@Hirsuite Pursuit
On the nature of the Ticketus contracts, I don’t think I can do more than quote from Lord Hodge in the Ticketus decision (nb for the purposes of the decision “Rangers” is defined as Rangers Football Club plc) :
“13] The contractual arrangements between Rangers and Ticketus comprise two closely connected agreements, namely the Season Tickets Agreement (“STA”) and the Agency Agreement, which are both dated 9 May 2011.
[14] The STA provided for the sale by Rangers to Ticketus of season tickets to seats in the Ibrox stadium for the four seasons (clause 2.1). It provided that the sale would take place in two tranches (clauses 4 and 5). The season tickets were defined thus:
“a ticket for the Season that grants the holder access to and the right to occupy a specific seat in the Stadium at all Matches without additional charges for such access or right.”
Schedules 2 and 3 to the STA defined the general location of the seats in the stadium which were to be the subject of the sale of the season tickets, and specified the numbers of seats by reference to the part of the stadium, the tier and ticket category (i.e. adult, concession or juvenile). English law governs the STA and the Courts of England have exclusive jurisdiction over it (Clause 24).
[15] The Agency Agreement is an agreement by which Ticketus, on the basis that it was owner of the season tickets which were the subject of the STA (“the STA tickets”), appointed Rangers as its non-exclusive agent in the promotion and worldwide sale of the STA tickets. It obliged Rangers to sell the STA tickets in priority over other season tickets (clause 4.1). It imposed on Rangers the obligation to pay the proceeds of the sale of the STA tickets into a designated account with Bank of Scotland plc for the sole benefit of Ticketus (clauses 3.1.17 and 5). Rangers gave Ticketus a non-exclusive royalty-free licence to use its intellectual property for the purpose of promoting and selling the STA tickets (clause 11). English law also governs the Agency Agreement and the Courts of England have exclusive jurisdiction over it (Clause 30).
[16] The administrators’ legal advisers have challenged the enforceability of the STA. It envisaged that Rangers would use the payment for the first tranche STA tickets to effect the repayment of its debt of about £18 million to Bank of Scotland plc. It was also proposed that Rangers would lend £16 million to Wavetower Limited (now called The Rangers FC Group Limited) to enable that debt to be repaid and that the bank’s debt and its securities would be assigned to Wavetower Limited (Schedule 19).The administrators’ legal advisers have asserted that the STA is illegal on the ground that it was an agreement for the giving indirectly by Rangers of financial assistance for the acquisition of its shares contrary to section 678 of the Companies Act 2006. The existence of this challenge is not however relevant to the directions which I have to give as I must assume at this stage that the Ticketus agreements are valid.”
On the basis of that, it seems to me to be clear that the Ticketus contract was with oldco Rangers, and that the funds derived from the Ticketus contract were loaned to Wavetower to pay the oldco debt to Lloyds/BoS.
As you’ll also see, at that stage D&P’s legal advisers are said to be of the view that the agreement was illegal on the grounds of financial assistance – which is why I suspect that may still be the ground (or one of the grounds) under which oldco’s liability to Ticketus was being challenged by D&P.
I think you perhaps place too much emphasis on where the money ended up. Just because Wavetower ended up with the money doesn’t create a liability from Wavetower to Ticketus. The question is with which company did Ticketus contract. That company will owe Ticketus. Unless oldco had already sold the tickets to Wavetower, only oldco can sell the tickets to Ticketus – so at first instance oldco is the obvious candidate. Lord Hodge – who has seen the contractual documentation – confirms this.
It isn’t a question of the floating charge being invalid – the floating charge plainly is valid. Nor is there any doubt Group acquired the benefit of the charge.
The real question is whether the floating charge secures any debt. D&P didn’t think so, Whyte made no claim, and Whyte purportedly acknowledged that he had no claim by the time of the CVA (see note 1 to Schedule 7 of the CVA offer – “The Joint Administrators understand that, in respect of this security: (1) Group has confirmed that no debt is secured…”)
All of that is consistent with the floating charge not securing any debt to Whyte or his company.
Looking at it another way. If the charge secured a debt, why did Whyte allow the company to go into administration? The charge pre-dates the change in the law (which was 2003, if I recall correctly), and so if it secured an £18m debt, Whyte could have used it to appoint an administrative receiver as the company neared insolvency. He would then have had complete control over the process, and given the level of debt, could quite properly have claimed all of the assets.
The approaching insolvency clearly wasn’t news to Whyte, so he could have triggered the receivership at an appropriate time. The whole rigmarole of D&P, the supposed “front” of Sevco 5088 etc could then have been avoided, and the whole process would have been orders of magnitude cheaper.
Against that background, it doesn’t seem very likely that the charge secured any debt, in my view.
Next part of tonights conversation:
Paul Brennan 5088 @CQN 49m
@stephenwatson9 @Sir_Barold_QC @JohnMcLean_HS67 @junglebhoy60 they would rather finish the season than fold with one game left #indignity
Colin Jordan Colin Jordan @colinjordan3 23m
@JohnMcLean_HS67 @CQN @stephenwatson9 Phil hinted at a quick admin process in one of his blogs recently
Paul Brennan 5088 Paul Brennan 5088 @CQN 17m
@colinjordan3 @JohnMcLean_HS67 @stephenwatson9 meltdown only happens if Whyte owns assets. No assets n questions over IPO? No quick solution
Retweeted by Henry Clarson
3 Retweets
Susan (T) Burke BaroldHatchback 5088 Henry Clarson
Colin Jordan Colin Jordan @colinjordan3 13m
@CQN @JohnMcLean_HS67 @stephenwatson9 Do u think Whyte will take this all the way to Court
Paul Brennan 5088 Paul Brennan 5088 @CQN 9m
@colinjordan3 @JohnMcLean_HS67 @stephenwatson9 Whyte thinks they will fold well before court. I think he’s right
Private Eyes article:;
Venrik Hegetable @HenrikVegetable 8m
http://i44.tinypic.com/34dpkra.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2emcuad.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/307ucyp.jpg
sevco private eye article. Crooks charter
torrejohnbhoy says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 23:09
Nothing new, but people pay a surprising amount of attention to what’s in “The Squalid Little Rag”
These people really are the pits (sic)
regarding next season’s – season ticket sales for sevco.
maybe the printer has not been paid for last season’s?
scapaflow14 says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 23:17
I’ve never bought a copy.If it’s making this story available to a wider audience then it’s worthwhile.
duplesis says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 22:52
Legalese true – but elements of non-sequential logic to expand – perhaps?
As Bampots we havethe luxery of thinking the unthinkable
So here goes
This entire saga is populated by Spivs who occupy positions of influence in the decision making process
I exclude all decent RFC fans who invested in the RIFC IPO ………plus Murray, Cardigan and McCoist These guys are definitely not Spivs
Spivs are only interested in milking TRFC for money. Murray, Cardigan and McCoist are more interested in saving the club
So we have to conclude
The sole reason why 3 non Spivs are still at the centre of the saga is to try to prevent the Spivs making decisions that make them money but damage the club at the same time
………………..
Right now there is a move afoot for Green to sell his shareholding to people who would be flattered to be described as Spivs. If this happened RFC would spiral down into uncharted waters and be a major focus for Strathclyde Police
No decent citizen wants that to happen
Murray et al have a major dilemma
What can they do to arrest an even worse change of ownership?
Is it better to force liquidation of RIFC in order to force the sale of TRFC to genuine Bears?
Or
Is it better to resign and avoid the dishonour of being part of their club coming under the control of people who rank well below Spivs?
So far it seems Murray & Co are willing to tough it out
If so they may have common cause with an unexpected ally
Whyte wants BDO to reverse the Asset Sale. If this happened it would be the end of RIFC since it negates the very rationale for the IPO
However
Reversing the Asset Sale would stop dead in its tracks all the machinations going on to extricate the Spivs through selling on to dubious 3rd parties
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Thinking the unthinkable
Murray and Whyte have the opportunity to forge a temporary alliance with Whyte by supporting the Worthington action against RIFC
Although Whyte may end up with a handsome payoff, TRFC could be rescued from the hands of people who have served time in jail for breaking the law
Joining forces with Whyte may be the least worst solution
Goosy
Perverse but may well end up being the way it goes. Ally however drawing his massively unwarranted salary is doing nothing (in the opinion of an increasing amount of bears) to save anything but his bank balance and I think will be swept away. Cardigan I think still fears the yet untold wrath of RTC for what ever reason.
duplesis says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 22:52
duplesis, I’m enjoying your exchange with HirsuitPursuite which though somewhat detailed, is perhaps an important reminder of the history of the fiasco, at a point where a summary of proceedings might be a fitting precursor to any grand finale.
At the risk of opening my mouth and confirming my stupidity, I’m not entirely at one with your well considered reasoning.
Surely any agreement with Ticketus cannot have been with RFC directly since this would imply that RFC used the money to buy themselves. As HP indicated, the agreement was with Craig Whyte’s Wavetower company. Craig Whyte bought RFC using the money he got from Ticketus in return for future season ticket sales.
Separately but addressing another point made by you concerning the administrators (you used the term administrative receiver which I will presume is the same thing), I recall anectdotally that when HMRC asked for RFC to go into administration, CW succeeded in having Duff & Phelps appointed when many on the RTC blog were concerned that an HMRC appointed administratior would have allowed for a ‘fairer’ outcome.
I also recollect anecdotally that when D&P went to court to get a ruling on Ticketus claim on RFC(IA) the outcome seemed ambivolent. No clarity was observed from this action and D&P did not achieve the outcome they would have wished (that was the RTC sentiment I recall).
Trying to boil this down into laymans terms. Natural justice and all that (remember justice?).
Which then begs the question, why did D&P go to the CoS for a ruling when Ticketus were not contracted with RFC (???). Also, if D&P were in cahoots with CW as many thought at the time via the David Grier link, what is the spiv mechanism that would make all this sensibly mesh?
Craig Whyte joins the Granton darts club paying the membership fee of £2.
=======
Has he been asked to sit on the BOARD?
I’ll get ma flights..
= = = = =
Are Granton darts club ‘wee arra peepeeell!!’?
++++++++++++++++
At the “title” Celebrations on Saturday …. Just before the 4th div trophy is presented … big screens cut to highlights of Celtic V Caley
Fade to Jim Bowen saying “Lets have a look at what you could have won!”
@Mullach
The Ticketus agreement in isolation is just a purchase of tickets for a reduced sum in advance. It appears Ticketus had provided funding to the old company on this basis long before Whyte ever became involved – although for much smaller sums. Its really a bit like factoring I suppose, and it would be the oldco rather than any other company which sold the tickets to Ticketus – as Lord Hodge confirmed. An advance by Ticketus of funds in exchange for the purchase of tickets isn’t per se RFC using money to buy themselves.
Where it becomes more murky is the use put to the Ticketus money by Whyte. Arguably what Whyte did was indeed use the company’s own assets to buy itself – which is why D&P suggested to Lord Hodge that the arrangement overall might be financial assistance and thus unenforceable. I think that’s also why D&P ultimately rejected Ticketus’s claim for voting purposes (that’s not to say I agree the Ticketus deal was financial assistance – I honestly don’t know – but that’s the conclusion D&P came to on advice.)
As I posted above on the Ticketus contractual arrangements, the best evidence we have is Lord Hodge’s summary of the position in the Ticketus case, and Lord Hodge is clear the Ticketus agreement was between the RFC oldco and Ticketus, and that the funds obtained were then loaned by the RFC oldco to Wavetower, and used by Wavetower to pay the Lloyds/BoS debt.
On your other point, an administrative receiver is a different thing to an administrator. An administrative receiver is appointed by the floating charge holder, and the receiver’s duty is to the floating charge holder ahead of the other creditors. If Whyte had appointed an administrative receiver he would quite lawfully have had priority over other creditors and the receiver could have acted entirely on Whyte’s account to recover assets sufficient to meet the debt due to him. If the debt really was £18m, then Whyte could have walked away with all the assets perfectly legally by appointing the receiver, and the other creditors would have been stiffed.
Whyte lost the right to appoint an administrative receiver when the company went into administration, and against that background it would just be daft for him to chose administration rather than receivership if the charge actually secured anything.
It used to be the case that the right to appoint a receiver was one of the primary benefits of being a floating charge holder. (Administrative receivers are almost a defunct concept now however, since the right of a floating charge holder to appoint one was abolished for floating charges created after (I think) September 2003. Whyte acquired the old BoS floating charge though, which pre-dated this, and so would still have had the right to appoint a receiver.)
goosygoosy says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 23:29
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Thinking the unthinkable
Murray and Whyte have the opportunity to forge a temporary alliance with Whyte by supporting the Worthington action against RIFC
Although Whyte may end up with a handsome payoff, TRFC could be rescued from the hands of people who have served time in jail for breaking the law
Joining forces with Whyte may be the least worst solution
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You’ve lost me. As an Director of The Rangers Murray’s legal obligations are to that company. And how does Whyte forge an alliance with Whyte.
Also while I’m here, can I just say top posting by HP and duplesis today.
duplesis says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 00:42
@Mullach
Whyte lost the right to appoint an administrative receiver when the company went into administration, and against that background it would just be daft for him to chose administration rather than receivership if the charge actually secured anything.
It used to be the case that the right to appoint a receiver was one of the primary benefits of being a floating charge holder. (Administrative receivers are almost a defunct concept now however, since the right of a floating charge holder to appoint one was abolished for floating charges created after (I think) September 2003. Whyte acquired the old BoS floating charge though, which pre-dated this, and so would still have had the right to appoint a receiver.)
====================================================================
re the going into administration point. Craigie Bhoy was out run by HMRC on this one was he not? They forced the administration on RFC and Craigie scrambled a last minute equaliser over the line by getting D&P appointed rather than HMRC’s choice – well done Lord Hodge.
As I posted above on the Ticketus contractual arrangements, the best evidence we have is Lord Hodge’s summary of the position in the Ticketus case, and Lord Hodge is clear the Ticketus agreement was between the RFC oldco and Ticketus, and that the funds obtained were then loaned by the RFC oldco to Wavetower, and used by Wavetower to pay the Lloyds/BoS debt.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The bit Ticketus could not have anticipated – An early doors Switcheroo which allowed the gamble to go ahead aimed at wining some Euro money to get to the close season and then Admin Receiver with Craigie in control but that failed (Ally you IMBECILE!!)
Re the guarantee/charge on the deeds of Murky Park .
I don’t know if the discussion has come about due to something I posted earlier in the week regards SSB .
Gary Ralston (of the Sunday Mail) was on and it was stated he was the man responsible for the
“I have saw the title deeds ” spread in last weeks Mail ( might be worth having a listen back on SSB rewind).
He said that he had been shown the title deeds by Stockbridge and their was no charges attached to Ibrokes and the Albion car park but he said their was on Murky Park (I knew about the one to Sports Scotland ) but I’m sure he said it was to BOS and dated from years back (2002 I think ) the fact he said it belonged to BOS is what interested me .I don’t know if it was a slip of the tongue or if he just got mixed up with the Sports Scotland charge but he went on to say that he was told it was an old charge that had been sorted and was awaiting administrative updating ,this also struck me as strange as there have been two new owners in there and they are still awaiting paperwork regards this nearly 3 years later .
Another thing I find interesting is that a poster on here said that a floating charge would not just be attached to one asset (Murky Park ) but would be over ALL assets .
It may be nothing but it just seems to be another unanswered question although this one is just waiting on the postman delivering the relevant paperwork (maybe he is on long term sick ) or at least that is what they told Ralston
Also if you were summoned for an exclusive on the biggest story in Scottish Football at the moment (to see the title deeds and to accurately report on who owns the them ) would you (a mere sports hack ) go in yourself ,or would you take a financial /investigative journo in with you .
Don’t be surprised if the conflicted SFA decide to change their rules…that gives them the power to promote any club at any time to any division in order to avoid the embarassment of a club collapsing who they were responsible for accepting into Scottish football without proper checks or criteria being met…
They are as desperate as those now tasked with begging for SEVCO to be unfairly promoted…
@bogsdollox at 01:36
The “race” between Whyte and HMRC was to appoint an administrator though – Whyte at no stage tried to appoint an administrative receiver. If the floating charge secured anything, he could and surely would have done that.
@jonnyod at 7:07
The 2002 charge over Auchenhowie is the standard security to The Scottish Sports Council.
Where Ralston may have become confused though is that – at the point Auchenhowie was acquired – it became subject to the pre-existing floating charge, as it became one of the assets of the company which granted the charge. At the time the floating charge was declared as the 3rd ranked security over Auchenhowie on the Land Certificate.
It may be that charge is still shown on the new Land Certificate, as the floating charge granted by oldco was never discharged, but if it is, it is of historic interest only. It can’t affect the assets of the new company, as the new company didn’t grant the charge.
Indeed, we can be quite clear that there is no floating charge (new or old) over the assets of the new company as if there were one it would have to be declared at Companies House to be valid, and there’s nothing there.
Maybe off topic.For a laugh my mates and I,staunch followers of RTC and now SFM, are trying to come up with ditties relating to the sevco saga and the role of blogs such as this.
So, here’s a starter for you all..Arise You Bampots From Your Keyboards,……fill in the verses. And end with..’Cos Internet Bampottery Unites Unites The ‘Fitba’ World. Feel free to change any or everything.
Nurse!
torrejohnbhoy says:
Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 23:20
I’ve never bought a copy.If it’s making this story available to a wider audience then it’s worthwhile.
——
Private Eye is always worth a punt, if only to get an idea of the scurrilous behaviour and nepotism inherent in politics and business in our lovely country.
The Rangers piece in this issue concentrates more on Whyte’s background dealings than Rangers, but hopefully now that they’ve devoted a couple of columns to that they’ll start making inroads into the Ibrox situation.
Note also the Letters page, which has some excellent contributions regarding the last issue which was dedicated to Mrs Thatcher.
duplesis says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 00:42
I think that’s also why D&P ultimately rejected Ticketus’s claim for voting purposes (that’s not to say I agree the Ticketus deal was financial assistance – I honestly don’t know – but that’s the conclusion D&P came to on advice.)
————————————————————————————
Ticketus according to STV did get a vote and they voted in favour of the CVA.
Who voted for and against it?
On June 14, the CVA vote took place, where its defeat was confirmed after HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), the biggest creditor by size, had announced in the days leading up to it that it would be rejecting the proposed pay-off deal. In the CVA vote, the tax authority was listed as being owed a total of £94.4m. This included a £72.7m debt owed by the oldco in relation to an estimated outcome of the “big tax case”.
According to the outcome of the voting, HMRC had a 76% voting share in the CVA. The next largest creditor listed was Ticketus which had a total claim of £27.2m, a 21.9% share of the vote. The ticketing firm, which struck a deal with Mr Whyte for season ticket sales at Ibrox, voted for the CVA proposal, as well as several smaller creditors including the Scottish Sports Council, Arsenal Football Club and the G4S security firm, meaning it was defeated, while there were a small number of abstentions. The vote breakdown in favour of the CVA was 23.6% with 76% against.
http://sport.stv.tv/blog/203241-rangers-tax-case-and-the-result-of-the-cva-your-questions-answered/
duplesis says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 08:27
at the point Auchenhowie was acquired – it became subject to the pre-existing floating charge, as it became one of the assets of the company which granted the charge. At the time the floating charge was declared as the 3rd ranked security over Auchenhowie on the Land Certificate.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
duplesis
How do you know that ?
How did you get sight of Land Certificate?
duplesis says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 08:27
Indeed, we can be quite clear that there is no floating charge (new or old) over the assets of the new company as if there were one it would have to be declared at Companies House to be valid, and there’s nothing there.
=========================================================================
Ah Duplesis, I too have ultimate faith in my fellow human beings always doing what is legally and morally correct.
As to spivs, I do not class them as human beings because they have no interest in anyone or anything other than acquiring money. It doesn’t matter how much they already have – they still want more. Indeed I have often pondered when dealing with spivs whether, in fact, the money is of secondary importance to the actual thrill they get in milking the naive and even better – fellow spivs. I think it’s the way they are hard-wired from birth.
So if there was a floating charge it would be declared at Companies House? I only have to look at the way Companies House is treated by spivs day and daily, including during this particular period, to realise that Companies House is basically nothing more than a Post Office and its investigative functions generally ineffective.
If any example is needed to see how difficult it is to believe Companies House records we need look no further than the issue of Sevco 5088 – how close do the public records actually show what happened there and is still happening? We don’t even know how many shares remain in TRFCL, what vale they have and who or what actually owns them.
A kosher company run by decent businessmen would have no problem in declaring a charge but would a spiv company be as up-front especially if the charge involved another spiv company – perhaps involving a chain of other spiv companies with an ultimate offshore holding company.
I have never looked at the requirements for registering charges at Companies House or the penalty for failing to do so and I’m sure someone here will already know that. But even if the bureaucracy isn’t followed and it isn’t registered at Companies House I would doubt that alone would invalidate the ‘legitimacy’ of the charge.
The man Who Would be King’s (fantastic movie) tax problems are not quite as settled as we thought. SARS have got a second protection order freezing his, his wife’s and his families assets
http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/2013/02/11/sars-acts-to-freeze-king-family-assets
Sevco followers citing the parlous state of Dunfermline and Hearts as a reason for fast tracking them to the SPL.What do these clubs have in common? Owners who played fast and loose with other people’s money.Capitalists with casino mentalities who cared nothing for anyone but themselves.Thatcher’s money men with no sense of community and devoid of moral compass.
jonnyod says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 07:07
Another thing I find interesting is that a poster on here said that a floating charge would not just be attached to one asset (Murky Park ) but would be over ALL assets .
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A floating charge would not appear on the deeds of any property. It is a charge over all the assets of the company, whatever those assets are at any point. A floating charge will be registered at Companies House. It only relates to the original company and does not move when the assets move, unlike a fixed charge which stays with a specific property no matter who owns it.
So what the journalist has seen is a fixed charge over Murray Park. He must have got the name wrong, if that was the only charge on the deeds, since the Sports Scotland charge still exists, I believe.
Good work scapa. Looks like events down Govan way won’t be high on King’s agenda. I can’t see how SFA could allow him to re-emerge via the back door with all the baggage he has, then again its the SFA, and their “fit and proper” is about as scrupulous as SDM’s sniff test
scapaflow14 says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 08:59
0 0 i
Rate This
The man Who Would be King’s (fantastic movie) tax problems are not quite as settled as we thought
Certainly and its dragged on 10 years now.
His debt is a mere £ 189 million to the SA taxman, for those who dont do ZA Rand.
jonnyod says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 07:07
Also if you were summoned for an exclusive on the biggest story in Scottish Football at the moment (to see the title deeds and to accurately report on who owns the them ) would you (a mere sports hack ) go in yourself ,or would you take a financial /investigative journo in with you.
========================================================================
I cast no slur on Gary but if I was an Editor I wouldn’t be sending any sports journo in the first place.
I would be sending a hard-nosed investigative reporter and after he had erxamined the documents then he would ask for a copy to take away with him – that would obvioulsy provide the basis for checking them out legally.
If Stockbridge had refused then he would have been told, in no uncertain terms, that the story would be run that he was frightened to provide a copy of the documents he claimed was genuine with the heading: ‘What’s He Hiding?’.
From the start of this saga. sports journalists have been used as a cut-out so that newspapers don’t find and properly investigate the very complex issues that need to be looked-at. Sports reporters just don’t do these kind of stories for obvious reasons which I don’t think I need to spell-out.
So what we get is either the PR line of the day or carefully planted exclusives designed to mislead and deflect away from the real story and raw areas that might tumble the house of cards. In general there is no appetite for uncovering this cess-pit as too many people would be exposed for what they are.
I know it’s easy to point to an Establishment cover-up but I also feel it could be just as easily explained by self-interest in covering up a persistent and widespread corruption over decades involving a helluva lot of professional people spread across various business and professional sectors.
I have therefore always believed that the full story will never be revealed, certainly not from within Scotland, although we will be thrown a few sacrificial lambs along the way to part-satisfy our need for redress.
I am not paranoid about this but merely recognise the facts of the power wielded in our tightly-knit wee society and make no mistake about this – it effortlessly crosses the religious divide. These people know better and truly believe they are acting in OUR best interests. It was always thus but this debacle really does threaten them and it may all yet unravel which is why they are getting so desperate.
@goosygoosy @8:51
Yes, I’ve seen Auchenhowie’s land certificate – the old one though, for the period the oldco plc were the proprietors. I haven’t seen the up dated one.
@ecobhoy @8:55
I agree that we can’t rely on crooks to follow the rules, but in the case of a floating charge, they would be mad not to, since the charge is void against other creditors if not registered – sections 878 and 889 Companies Act 2006. (Its also void in the context of an administration or liquidation – in effect an unregistered charge has no practical value at all.)
@neepheid @09:06
I would generally agree that a floating charge wouldn’t show on the Land Register, but there certainly was one declared on the Land Certificate for Auchenhowie previously.
I think this is probably because there was a ranking agreement between 3 fixed charges and the floating charge (2 came before the floating charge and one after), and the ranking of the fixed charges wouldn’t make sense unless the floating charge was mentioned.
Hearts were in trouble before Rangers dropped. Dumfermline should have been allowed to stay in the SPL if the various football authorities had ruled fairly on various matters including the small matter of inelligible players which could have been dealt with before the end of the 2011-12 season if the SFA had been forced to examine and rule on the evidence. If they had stayed up, the extra money may have saved them from the situation they are now in. Collateral Damage?
While an education as ususal going back over all the floating charge and the administration etc is all old hat and in all probability mostly not relevant.
What is relevant is two things
1) Cash flow at Ibrox
The question is how do the books balance with what money they have left from the IPO?
In my view the newco had money injected into the company when the first guys put in their initial investment. Added to that there was the season tickets, pay as you go sales and money from the old sponsorship deals. Added to that is the £22m from the IPO. Plenty money for any club in Scottish football.
Now they have covered all their running costs but have also had some one off payments to deal with. What is unknown is that are we talking about hard cash or are some of the investments in the forms of loans and / or are people looking to take or have been taking money out of the company.
If the money is being used for operating costs then, with the addition of season ticket money, new sponsporship money and some realistic cost cutting, they will probably get over the next hurdle. If money is slipping away by other means then they are in trouble.
(BTW – When will the investors, other than Ashley through strip sales, get their return!!!)
2) Does Sevco 5088 have a legitimate claim on the assets thet went to Sevco Scotland?
If there is something to go for through the courts then T’Rangers will have a cloud hanging over them a la the EBT’s. People will be very wary of investing more money or taking conrol of the club.
It may of course come to nothing but if they learened from the EBT issue, the new board should be looking at how to cover all scenarios, from handing every thing over to CW, to paying him and his buddies off, to being told their is nothing to worry about, please carry on as before.
However the whole of 2) has an impact on 1) above and the longer it goes on the longer the uncertainty.
The new board then have to deceide on how to play it. Tough it out until you are back in the SPL where you can charge top dollar for tickets or nip it in the bud now – at a cost – with money they may not have.
Not an enviable position to be in.
A wee PS for this morning
Has any mention been made of Craig Mather’s salary and bonus package.
Surely if he is going to welding the axe to Ally’s war chest then one of the first things to do would be to review the package awarded to the CEO.
scapaflow14 says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 08:59
8 0 Rate This
The man Who Would be King’s (fantastic movie) tax problems are not quite as settled as we thought. SARS have got a second protection order freezing his, his wife’s and his families assets
http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/2013/02/11/sars-acts-to-freeze-king-family-assets
…………………………………………………………….
A glib liar…with no shame and applying every trick to avoid the law….the man is well suited to SEVCO…
And yet the Scottish MSM will continue to champion this dishonest liar as somehow the man to save SEVCO?
wottpi says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 09:34
……………………
You must also remember some (how much is uncertain) of the IPO investment was based on a Promisery that certain conditions were met…
Were they met?
That article is from Feb. Is it not the case that since then he has come to some sort of “arrangement” with the tax authorities in SA, but still faces some court hearings? I’m sure someone on here posted about it.
duplesis
If a loan agreement exists in relation to monies received by Rangers FC & “lent” to RFC Group , then what you say is 100% correct. I know not whether such paperwork exists; but, from what we know of Mr Whyte, it would seem highly unlikely.
I have no doubt that Rangers FC is a party to the contract between Craig Whyte and Ticketus; but is it the principal debtor?
The scenario I set out in my previous post, I believe, would see Mr Whyte/ RFC Group as the principal debtor.
In any case, even if RFC Group simply acted as the guarantors, the potential liability for failing to perform the contractual obligations exists equally with the principal and the guarantor.
I don’t think what Lord Hodge said in relation to D&P’s legal advice is particularly relevant. He, it appeared to me, was commenting on the existence of allegations of financial aid. He made no comment on the merits of the allegations.
Lord Hodge’s judgement was that the contractual obligation that Rangers FC bore (to sell future tickets on behalf of Ticketus) could not be made void by the administrators. Instead, he said, the administrators could simply refuse to perform their part of the bargain and it would be up to the injured party (Ticketus) to claim damages against the company.
D&P subsequently informed Ticketus that they would not maintain the terms of the contract and Ticketus then had the option of claiming damages. Had they done so, they would have been unsecured creditors of Rangers FC. I know of no Ticketus claim for damages against Rangers FC.
What Ticketus chose to do – while the administration was still ongoing – was to start proceedings against Mr Whyte and RFC Group.
It seems to me that a purposeful construction of the relevant transactions can be summarised as follows:
Ticketus provided funds to RFC Group in return for the right the proceeds from the sale of future season tickets to the general public – to be provided by its subsidiary Rangers FC
RFC Group used these funds to purchase debt from BoS that was secured by a floating charge
The internal debt owed by Rangers FC to RFC Group will be run down as the tickets are sold on behalf of Ticketus
As Rangers FC have refused to perform their contractual obligations, Ticketus have taken steps to get their money back from RFC Group
RFC Group have a valid floating charge and a crystallised debt
If on the other hand, as you believe, Ticketus provided funds to Rangers FC and Rangers FC subsequently lent those funds to RFC Group then you are correct and I am wrong.
bailemeanach says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 09:18
Good work scapa. Looks like events down Govan way won’t be high on King’s agenda. I can’t see how SFA could allow him to re-emerge via the back door with all the baggage he has, then again its the SFA, and their “fit and proper” is about as scrupulous as SDM’s sniff test
……………………………………………
Sorry…but the SFA astonishly have recently stated they have no issue with Mr. King taking over in principal…
y4rmy says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 09:53
It’ll be this one the deal was struck with tax office
http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/2013/03/20/king-strikes-confidential-deal-with-sars
http://thegremlin.co.za/plettenberg-bay-news/wordpress/2013/03/25/cocky-npa-left-red-faced-by-dave-king/
http://thegremlin.co.za/plettenberg-bay-news/wordpress/2013/03/20/king-strikes-confidential-deal-with-sars/
y4rmy – the confidential agreement is as outlined in scapa’s link, see also above links
From above link
“Mr King has also been ordered to resign as a director of Talacar and Gaius Atticus. He and Talacar were ordered to sign all necessary documents to register the 49% shareholding, previously held in the Gary Player Stud Farm by Talacar, in Mr Murray’s name”
How many Murray’s are involved in this debacle?
paulmac2 says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 09:42
0 0 i
Rate This
wottpi says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 09:34
……………………
You must also remember some (how much is uncertain) of the IPO investment was based on a Promisery that certain conditions were met…
Were they met?
=========================================================================
There has been no evidence to date with regard to Promiseries for the IPO.
Certainly plenty of talk and hope that they exist and will be acted upon but I think we will have to wait and see unless you have something that shows they exist.
However I agree there must be some mechanism for investors to make a return or at least cover their losses. At the way things are going it is going to be a long time before they see a return.
Yet another Murray!
I get the sense that the house of cards is about to come crashing down – the game now is who can escape from the wreckage with the least amount of damage and/or finger pointing at them.
As a result any moves are unlikely to be focused on achieveing the best interests of the football club or the fans. It is all about looking after number one.
Success is likely to mean that a club can continue in some fashion, from Ibrox. The winner (if there are any winners in all of this) will be those who can say to the fans we kept the club going in some shape or form.
Maybe TGEF was right – the fans will look upon him as the saviour of the day?
It is interesting that there are no noises from BDO and HMRC – they appear to be keeping their cards close to their chest, if they have a plan can one assume from the silence that they are keeping their heads down and sticking to it?
Graham Spiers @GrahamSpiers 18m
An interesting piece on Rangers ownership in TRS. Though I’d worked out fan own’ship currently at about 17% not 11%. http://bit.ly/164PmNb
………………………………………………….
No Graham…the shares are in one of the holding Company’s….not the club…11%…100%…it won’t make a jot of a difference…the spivs have their cash..
Ps…what happened to the shares you owned in Craig’s Rangers fc Graham?
A bit long.From The Rangers Standard:
Time for ‘We Are Rangers’ To Take Control At Ibrox
By Scott Reid
1
Last weekend Rangers were playing East Stirlingshire. It followed yet another insane, mad week for us Rangers fans. Boardroom trouble and strife oozing from every media pore, a new Chief Operating Officer who might never actually take up the post if the Interim CEO gets his way and news that we appear to have our own keyboard warrior.
There is something rather–as my Father-in-law would say–apposite about the claim that Imran Ahmed was perhaps only the latest high-ranking insider to masquerade on a Rangers fans forum as ‘IamRangers’. There, revealed in rather comical fashion, is a very worrying truth. As a support, we have perhaps been too willing to place the stewardship of our club into the hands of the ‘IamRangers’ types. To date, we have embraced with less conviction the ‘We are Rangers’ philosophy that would underpin fan ownership at Rangers.
A very Rangers paradox
In days gone past, Bill Struth might have made a good ‘IamRangers’–a man who ruled Ibrox with iron like discipline but with intentions characteristic of a benevolent dictator. Fast forward to more recent times and we find ‘IamRangers’ reinventing himself with Doctor Who like frequency. From Murray to Whyte to Charles Green (and friends), a sequence of owners–legal or otherwise–have lorded over Ibrox. But they have often done so in ways befitting only of Gordon Gekko.
I’m sure most of us know Gekko. If not, Gekko is the Michael Douglas character in the 1987 movie Wall Street. It was said to be director Oliver Stone’s tribute to his stockbroker father, but it is synonymous with 1980s corporate excess and brutality. Gekko is the type of character who justifies wrecking companies (and lives) simply because he can.
In the hands of ‘IamRangers’ owners moulded more by Gekko greed than Struthian values, Rangers Football Club was and is vulnerable. We know it and we fear it.
Which brings me back to the game with East Stirlingshire. Twitter, in its usual immediate way, alerted me to this banner:
‘RangersFC is OUR football club. Not a commodity for businessmen to plunder. We want our club back’
No sooner was I heartened by that sentiment than I also read:
‘As a collective fan-base though we’ll do nothing to achieve it.’
Herein lies the Rangers paradox. As fans we rightly claim in our hearts and our minds ownership of OUR club, and in our hands it would never be defenceless (again). But we appear all too willing to put our faith and money into the pockets of the next high-net-worth saviour or saviours and hope this time everything will be all right.
The time for a new approach is now. With wrangles over ownership and developing rumours about takeovers, the current situation demands a more strategic push on fan ownership at Rangers.
Fan Ownership at Rangers
We already have fan ownership and a decent chunk of it. Many of us bought individually in the RIFC public share offering, somewhat fewer of us bought into the RST’s BuyRangers scheme. I am informed, if all those individual holdings are taken together, fans might already own about 11% of RIFC’s share capital. If broadly right, fans are already the largest minority shareholder-at least when considered collectively.
But the current ownership structure means all those individual voices are drowned out by the Gordon Gekkos round the table. Even after dipping into our own pockets, ordinary fans have no chance of influencing the resolution of the current Boardroom troubles. We are left praying that the next ‘IamRangers’ is one of the ‘real Rangers men’ often talked about. Ally McCoist has as much acknowledged this. With impeccable timing, we had reported by the Sky Sports website:
‘Manager Ally McCoist has urged Charles Green and Imran Ahmad to sell their Rangers shares to people who have the same vision as the fans.’
McCoist said: ‘The fans need somebody to come in that they can relate to and who can agree with their vision in taking the club forward.’
I am sure real Rangers men are out there. Even if they are ready and willing, however, I’m not convinced this is the right way forward is because it requires yet more faith. Yes we want and need professional people; stability is essential and more financing is undoubtedly required. But I’d rather see these objectives achieved with a new ‘We are Rangers’ mentality.
And ‘We are Rangers’ has to be much more than just a catchy slogan. I have written previously about how fan ownership in itself is only part of the longer term solution (http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/fan-culture/168-achieving-renewal-through-the-fans-corporation).
The legitimacy of business objectives–what they are and who defines them–together with structures of governance and accountability also matter if we want to ensure that what is done in our name is indeed the right thing for Rangers.
We have heard time and again fine words from Rangers’ owners and CEOs about how the fans are the club, that the fans’ voice will be heard and, more than that, acted upon. But with an investor-owned business controlled by a single or consortium majority holding, the only guaranteed outcome is decisions that serve their interests. Those interests may align with those of the fans and club but this is not guaranteed. Real ownership means the ability to exercise influence.
So the question becomes how do we finally put a stop to the Gekko-style plunder of our hard earned cash and our club’s reputation? How do we ensure the ‘We are Rangers’ ethos is translated into the ownership and management of Rangers as opposed to the circumstances that appear to prevail at the moment?
Two avenues strike me as viable: one short term and tactical; the second longer term and strategic.
The Short Term
In the here and now, a mechanism is clearly needed whereby all those small fan shareholders can, if they wish, express a common collective voice. My understanding is that RST has been busy developing a legal basis whereby all fan shareholders (not just RST members) can appoint a proxy (presumably the RST) to vote collectively on key business matters. This is an essential development if fans want–irrespective of their views about the RST-their current shareholdings to matter.
With new investors believed to be hovering with a view to the future purchase of shareholdings currently subject to lock-ins, a formal coalition of small fan shareholders could be part of a new controlling interest aligned to, as Ally describe it, the fans’ vision. Exercising collective influence on dividend pay-outs, director appointments and pay is all readily achievable and would provide a powerful signal of intent.
A Longer Term Vision
Beyond current uncertainties and even the next few bumpy years, there remains the question of what form of corporate entity is best for Rangers Football Club. The German model, which is guided by mutual co-operative membership principles, is much applauded and little wonder when we witness the recent success of Bayern Munich and the resurrection of Borussia Dortmund.
Imitation may be the best form of flattery, but the prescription that Rangers need only copy the German model is far too simplistic. As part of rebuilding process, however, I believe that the current plc model should be seen as having a finite shelf-life and merely a necessary part of the transition to something more sustainable and desirable.
Viable alternatives to the plc corporate form already exist and are increasingly finding traction in the football sector. Portsmouth, at long last, are now effectively a Community Benefit Society organised on co-operative mutual principles via the new ownership of the Pompey Supporters Trust.
This co-operative model already exists at Rangers in the form of the RST’s BuyRangers scheme. The aspiration of BuyRangers is to one day achieve a majority 50% shareholding. I myself bought into the scheme but realistically this objective seems very distant.
What could be a game changer for the longer term future at Rangers is the current plc engaging actively in a debate about what corporate form is best able to deliver on the fan vision. Is it so farfetched, for example, to suggest the current plc could transform itself into a Community Interest Company (CIC)?
CICs are a form of social enterprise company introduced in the UK in 2005. They allow for equity investment similar to the plc model but what makes a CIC different is that they exist for the benefit of the community they seek to serve, taking precedence over individual shareholder interests. Investors can still receive dividends, albeit controlled, but fundamentally all business decisions must serve the community interest. For me the community in our case is the Rangers fan base and more widely Scottish football–where I firmly believe the club should remain.
Statutory asset lock-ins ensure that future shareholders can never morph the company into a for-profit business. In short, the CIC offers a potential way to combine the equity investment model with ensuring and preserving the community benefit provided by a football club. It is probably not that well known that last week’s game against East Stirlingshire was played at the home of Scotland’s first football CIC–Stenhousemuir Football Club.
At the moment, the travelling Bears will find themselves back at Ochilview next season–this time to play Scotland’s first football CIC. That journey most probably faces fewer obstacles than the one that could see the corporate transformation of Rangers into something like a CIC. In short, will the Gordon Gekkos who bought into the successful IPO be easily persuaded to buy into the CIC vision?
The plain truth is probably not at the moment. But the current diffuse ownership structure and the time limited nature of things like tax relief benefits for investors means that is not always going to be true. And of course investors come and go as share prices go up and down. The controlled dividends and asset lock-ins of a CIC will remain attractive to certain classes of equity investor including those who favour stable and prudent returns over speculative punts. It will be even more attractive to those sharing the community benefit ethos and business objectives of the CIC. The continued growth in the CIC sector and ever increasing demands for socially responsible investment products put this all into the realms of the possible at Rangers.
In the past 12 months there has understandably been much pre-occupation with matters of history. Concrete visions and plans for the future have been notable by their absence. My own feeling is that the aspiration to convert from an investor-owned plc to a member-owned club, whether that be a mutually owned business or a Community Interest Company, deserves serious discussion and debate. Only then will ‘We are Rangers’ ring true.
Movie Postscript
Even Gordon Gekko eventually realised the errors of his ways. In the 2010 sequel Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, Gekko returns as a bit of an anti-hero after a stint in jail. In his words: ‘It’s not about the money–it’s about the game’.
Scott Reid is a regulatory economist by training and Director in an Asset Management and Economics consulting business. Originally from Glasgow he now lives in the Midlands. More importantly he is a Rangers season ticket holder. Follow him on Twitter: @thecroakgang
Long Time Lurker says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 10:16
I wouldn’t get too hung up over BDO and HMRC.
Remember when the first house of cards came crashing down the ‘official view’ from HMRC was a desire for football played at Ibrox by a team in blue.
They were wanting to go after the previous regimes
Will the new crowd will come to their attention – only time will tell!!
y4rmy says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 10:13
…………………………………
Please…always bear in mind…King has previous for suggesting SARS agreements have been reached….only for SARS to announce they have had no such discussions…and denounced his attempts as further proof of the glib liar.
The only proof that can be accepted would be an announcement from SARS that the matter is now closed.
wottpi says:
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 09:39
Has any mention been made of Craig Mather’s salary and bonus package. Surely if he is going to welding the axe to Ally’s war chest then one of the first things to do would be to review the package awarded to the CEO.
===========================================================================
Worth remembering that Green’s was employed initially by TRFCL and his £360K salary rolled on to RIFC Plc. That company now has a Remuneration Committee comprised of 3 NEDS chaired by Phillip Cartmell with Walter Smith and Ian Hart the other members.
Part of their role is to approve the terms of any service agreement to be entered into with any
executive director which would include Mather.