David Low spoke to SFM today about the latest focus on Rangers Oldco, but thinks that Dave King’s words about Oldco being the real Rangers matters less to King than the increasingly improving health of the Oldco, now in liquidation.
In the last week it has emerged that HMRC may have lost their appeal against the improper use of EBTs, and that coupled with Dave King’s £20m claim being thrown out, has reduced liabilities so dramatically that Oldco could be solvent – especially if the asset sale from Oldco to Sevco Scotland is overturned as a consequence of current criminal proceedings involving all parties to that sale.
Low says that Rangers cannot possibly raise public investment for Newco whilst that uncertainty surrounding the assets is resolved.
“Nobody will put money into a business whose main assets are under dispute, and if they tried to raise funds in a prospectus, they would have to declare that nature of the dispute”
But the single most important aspect of the new developments?
“Everything depends on the criminal case outcome” says Low, who also observed that King is not alone in his repositioning with respect to Oldco.
The Worthington Group, of which Craig Whyte is a former director, have recently sprung to life and filed three years of returns. They have also made a claim to Rangers’ liquidators, BDO, that they hold a floating charge over the assets (currently around £20m net in cash) held in the current creditors’ pot.
“They also just appointed a new corporate director, Liberty Corporate – a name associated with Whyte”.
Low thinks that criminal proceedings and litigation could drag on for a number of years until the uncertainty over asset ownership is resolved. He thinks that this will critically impair Newco’s ability to raise funds for that period of time, but that improvements on the field will take the pressure of King in the meantime.
“At the end of the day, fans are only interested in what happens on the field.” says Low; “Rangers have a good manager, they are playing well and winning consistently. The fans will be happy with that”
Is it possible that TRFC have not repaid Mike Ashley because potentially there may not be any assets in Ashley’s ownership? In any case, even for Rangers to limp on with soft loans (which he says are the only funding options available), they need to try to put an end to the factional disputes which continue to plague the company.
“Peace needs to break out. There is no consensus, nobody is in control, so there is no way forward at boardroom level”
“The directors find themselves in the situation where they either continue to drip feed the club out of their own pockets, or face the alternative which is far more unpleasant.”
Curiously, Low gives the SFA a pass on their handling of the situation, and feels they were in an impossible position. That is not something that fits in with our consensus on SFM, and in fact the next blog, which will be published later this week, focuses on one of the SFA’s many dysfunctional episodes – their inability to scrupulously apply the rules and carry out their obligation to UEFA.
The podcast will be on iTunes, on our rss feed , and on the web here
didnt some ‘ biscuit’ on the beeb earlier in the season insist that warburton would have ensured st johnstone progressed in europe ach well trfc can concentrate on the petrofac…….
I’ve read and re-read some of the posts regarding the re-animation of RFC and then somehow transplanting, or merging as I’m sure we would be told, the two entities together with some consternation.
Now if RFC is brought back from the great beyond it will only be done by settling its debts. It owes a stack to HMRC for non-payment of NI and Tax, it owes Ticketus, and it owes a multitude of other creditors. The big creditors, particularly HMRC, will not vote for a CVA. That is the only way a deal can be done. Meanwhile they may bring RFC back simply to give it back to Craig Whyte! Tremendous business strategy there; give it back to the guy who has a life ban from the sport.
Craig cares not a jot for RFC so he’ll simply refuse to sell padlock the gates and walk away or sell it to the highest bidder to try and get out from under his debt. The highest bidder in that case will not be RIFC however even if they are they will have to drag all of their current debt with them and as we all know that is a lot and continuing to rise.
So what is the plan there then Ted; transfer the debt from TRFC to RIFC and merge the two clubs and then sell them to a new entity and ditch the debt now belonging to RIFC?
I think that may be what is called “putting assets beyond the reach of creditors”. Mike will be delighted at that prospect!
All of this is before you even begin to talk about sporting sanctions again. Surely by merging two clubs into one to create a new one will create some administrative issues…………. even for Bryson!
I cannot think of a more bizarre spectacle than a club, THAT NEVER DIED, being stitched to a new club that was the same CLUB THAT NEVER DIED and both seamlessly ditching millions upon millions of pounds in debt and ascend to the top of the SPFL with not even a question being asked by our fearless media.
I take that back I can think of a more bizarre spectacle; all of us even bothering to debate simply because the South African egomaniac decrees it and therefore it must be so. The guy clearly has reality connection issues.
Anyway now that I’ve got that off my chest I did manage to catch the second half of the match tonight and thought that despite a lot of possession “The Rangers” struggled to create any real chances. It was ‘full of sound and fury signifying nothing’.
Listening to the pundits they spoke confidently of FIVE, yes that’s FIVE, new players arriving. Money is clearly no object, indeed it isn’t an object at all because it doesn’t exist down Govan way. To hear these guys talk you think that there really is a portal into the vaults of the Bank of England where you do not need to complete a withdrawal slip to remove the cash. Money shall rain down from the sky!
This isn’t a business it is a millstone round the neck of every other club in the country. It is warping the reality of the league it is currently in with only a promise of more to come should it get promoted.
jimbo 22nd September 2015 at 10:31 pm
It really depends where they are getting the value of Ibrox Stadium from. Previously it was a “depreciated replacement cost ” as opposed to what they thought it could be sold for.
It’s all just smoke and mirrors, as most accounts are.
Justshatered,
Funnily enough it was big pockets DK who reckoned they need 5 new players for next season.
On the other hand the manager said NO! We will not upset the dressing room in Jan. by bringing in new players.
I don’t know what to think!
Homunculas, right I get that, the next time my brother says that I will be ready for him! Cheers. 😳
justshatered 22nd September 2015 at 10:37 pm
‘………This isn’t a business it is a millstone round the neck of every other club in the country. It is warping the reality of the league it is currently in ..’
___________
And it is truly astonishing, I think, that the other ‘businesses’ that make up the SFA seem to be like rabbits caught in the headlights.
They are standing as if paralysed , watching an associated business lurching from crisis to crisis, with every possibility that it will founder, and truly bugger up the entire operation of t THEIR businesses as well, by being unable to meet its fixtures when it goes bust before the end , and perhaps well before the end of the season
And nobody is saying anything, publicly!
Surely there must be some anxiety in all the Board rooms?
Do the club CEOs and chairpersons ever talk to each other about TRFC?
Or is there such a level of distrust among themselves, or suspicion of the SPFL and SFA Boards, that they deem it wiser to stay schtum, keep their heads down and say nothing?
John Clark 22nd September 2015 at 10:09 pm
” if it were to be proven that SDM had been fraudulently ‘duped’ into what he thought (perhaps) was a genuine sale, wouldn’t a question arise as to whether the sale ought to be declared null and void?”
———————————————————————–
That may be a valid outcome John, but it won’t be as simple as declaring everything subsequent null and void.
The latest round of arrests have been charged regardless of the decision to be reached over the take-over. Implying the outcome will have no bearing on the recent arrests and charges.
This suggests that whether the take-over is legal or not, there are aspects of the asset buy (2nd sale)which have resulted in independent charges, unrelated, or not dependent, on who owned what.
If they can connect both alleged crimes, and show they enabled the enactment of other, more serious crimes, would that be considered “Organised”?
Only listened to the Podcast today. David Low was excellent, well informed and put his points across very clearly.
He mentioned his surprise at the sale of the assets for £5.5m , I think a lot of people felt the same. For this price they got the physical assets plus the player registration and other intangible assets.
In the accounts to December 2012 (covering a period of 7 months) the Property plant and Equipment was valued at £43.8M and the Intangible Assets £19.3m. That is a total of £63.8m valuation on the assets bought for £5.5m.
I thought at the time that somebody had got a right bargain and were blatantly flaunting it.
Was the Ross County Score and Sevco score a reflection of the differences in the league ? Whilst I suspected Ross County would win I never expected that margin and as for the score at Ibrox I didn’t think SJ would lose more than a goal but I never expected them to score 3.
Reading the blog tonight on Mr Lows thoughts on Oldco and Newco a song by the Who keeps rolling round in my head, anybody guess what it is ? As a hint the name of the group is in the song title 🙂
Den 22nd September 2015 at 11:39 pm
Sorry but how did they get the players registrations.
When Rangers were placed into liquidation that was an automatic breach of the players’ contracts if I remember correctly. Most of the players chose not to exercise their TUPE rights and move their contracts to the new club (with the same terms and conditions). The only ones who chose to do that were players who didn’t think they could do better elsewhere. Elbows being a good example.
The bulk of the squad chose to become free agents, as their contracts had been broken, and sorted out deals elsewhere. Their registrations (held by the SFA whilst they were without a club) were then transferred to their new employer.
For the umpteenth time recently, sorry if I have got that wrong. However it was Rangers who claimed TUPE was to the benefit of the employer rather than the employee. The bulk of the first team squad simply walked away.
The new club did not get the players registration unless it suited the player. Then the new club had no option but to accept that.
John Clark.
If there is consent to a sale, legal title passes to the purchaser.
The new owner can legally sell on the goods and pass title to a second new owner.
Imagine then that the first sale is later found to have been based on a fraudulent act – perhaps an agent offers a valuation service and knowingly undervalues the goods to place an accomplice in a position to purchase at a bargain price.
If you are the original seller, you might want your goods returned. Unfortunately, it won’t happen. You can seek monetary compensation from the fraudsters -but ownership now lies with the second purchaser.
I can’t be specific in the current circumstances, but I don’t see any attempt to link events in 2011 to the events of 2012 in such a way that the original £1 sale could be undone.
Even if the events were shown to be linked, the only asset not held as security by Mike Ashley is Ibrox. Only Ibrox is vulnerable.
As far as I can tell, Mike’s ownership of the IP and security on Auchenhowie et al is pretty much bombproof.
easyJambo 22nd September 2015 at 12:59 am #
Auldheid 21st September 2015 at 11:25 pm #
What I’m trying to get my head around from the podcast is: is Dave King saying that had the creditors then been the possible creditors now (i.e HMRC and DK taken out) liquidation would not have been voted for then?
I forget the tipping point on the vote 75%/25% ? and which way?
=======================
The total of the Creditors’ claims was £169M. If you remove the Big Tax Case (£72M) and DK (£20M), then you are left with £77M.
HMRC’s other claims (VAT, PAYE NIC & the Wee Tax Case) would still amount to £22M, which would still be enough to block a CVA (29%), if they were so minded.
Ticketus with a claim of £27M (35%) would also be in a position to block a CVA, although they voted for one first time round.
======================
A belated thanks for giving me the answer I was looking for to a question I failed to articulate properly.
The Rangers blogger John James is of the view that very early in this upcoming court case all assets will be frozen meaning they can’t be sold, or used for security. If that does prove to be the case does it mean Ashley’s loan is also put on hold i.e he can’t get it back while the security for it is encumbered?
Auldheid 23rd September 2015 at 2:47 am
———–
Auldheid, just listened to your podcast (with Harry Brady) over breakfast. Apart from the Res. 12 issue it was also a great status and resume of various issues. Certainly deserves a wider audience that Celtic fans only.
http://ec.libsyn.com/p/5/b/7/5b736f6adb23268b/Celtic_Underground_260.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06cc8437d1c95c03b7&c_id=9876812
Early season viewing stats from our friends at The Football Life:
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/129698138211/spfl-viewing-figures-201516
upthehoops 23rd September 2015 at 7:04 am #
The Rangers blogger John James is of the view that very early in this upcoming court case all assets will be frozen meaning they can’t be sold, or used for security. If that does prove to be the case does it mean Ashley’s loan is also put on hold i.e he can’t get it back while the security for it is encumbered?
_____________________
I cannot imagine, for a moment, that the freezing of security can leave the ‘victim’ in an even worse state than he would otherwise be. In fact, if it hasn’t already occurred, I would be very surprised if it doesn’t provide MA/SD with the perfect trigger to recall the loan!
The effect of any ‘freezing’ must surely do no more than reduce MA’s security (car park and Ed’s House) and, probably, place TRFC in (a major) breach of the terms of the loan. And that would place the very short term future of TRFC in Ashley’s hands, leaving him to contemplate what move gives him most chance of recovering his money – and holding onto the IP of ‘Rangers’!
One game doth not maketh a season but it does raise some interesting questions for DCK and the wearer of the magic hat.
T’Rangers team of the moment doesn’t need to be added to for a win or a play-off spot in the Championship.
As Warburton said the other day bring folk in and you risk unsettling the current squad.
However last night showed they were off the mark in relation to a solid Premiership side and last season saw what can happen if a lowly Premiership side has their tails up.
Looking at the forums some Bears are fairly realistic and are prepared to give W & W and the curretn squad time. Others has already jumping on the DCK train of thought with a striker, holding midfielders and better cover at centre back being first on the shopping list for January. The wonder loans are suddenly not looking as potent against a higher class of defender.
So, do you keep with what you have got and perhaps hope to keep injury free or do you prepare for the worse case scenario of having to have a squad capable of winning a play-off ?
At the same time you are aiming to hit the ground running next season if promotion is secured.
With the possible need for a decent amount of cash needed come the end of the year, just to keep the lights on it will be interesting to see what path is taken and if there is indeed any money available to strengthen the squad.
As always it comes down to whether or not the cash that was much spoken about is actually there and available.
Joihn Clark @ 11.05pm
My Edit in Brackets
I guess my point here is that it is hard to tell if clubs are all genuine rabbits in the headlights, or alternatively if they are all following the mantra about when your enemy is making the worst mistakes, for goodness sake don’t go interrupting him.
That they were not required to lodge a cash bond is, however, very questionable, and not for the first time, eh Cambell!
Also just a follow up question on HP’s reminder to split the two transactions 2011 (which appears legitimate albeit with questionable funding mechanisms) and 2012 which does not because of the massive undervaluation and exclusive purchase rights.
Who was the D&P go to guy for CW’s initial purchase who featured heavily in the Charlotte revelations? I haven’t seen his name mentioned recently, certainly not in relation to the collar feeling going on. Unless he’s inside already of course!
upthehoops 23rd September 2015 at 7:04 am #
The Rangers blogger John James is of the view that very early in this upcoming court case all assets will be frozen meaning they can’t be sold, or used for security. If that does prove to be the case does it mean Ashley’s loan is also put on hold i.e he can’t get it back while the security for it is encumbered?
========================
Firstly, I do not think that all assets will be frozen. I base that on the very instructive comments above by Hirsute Pursuit and Homunculus. Without any allegation of theft, it seems that the properties cannot be reclaimed by any previous owner, so on what basis could the use of the properties by the current owner (TRFC) be restricted by a criminal court? I just can’t see it, unless it is caught by the Proceeds of Crime Act, but even then, action would have to come after a criminal conviction. Until any trial is concluded, there is no crime and no criminals. And, of course, there may never be.
However, since almost day one of this saga, there have been doubts expressed by some regarding the status of Ibrox. It is clear that title is held by TRFC, that is confirmed both by the Land Registry and the audited accounts- one of the basic audit checks is to ensure that a company actually owns what is shown on its balance sheet. Even so, the rumours persist that Ibrox is encumbered in some way, presumably in a way that avoids the need to notify the Land Registry.
Ashley came close to taking a security over Ibrox, but backed off at the last minute. I wondered at the time whether that was really down to the noise from the pitchfork faction, or was there some legal block on using Ibrox as security. Interestingly Ashley has since claimed that he (Ashley) can block the use of Ibrox as security. From a MASH statement of 10 June 2015-
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mike-ashley-issues-statement-outlining-5857906
As regards Ashley’s loan, nothing can stop it being repaid except for the very obvious problem- there is no money available to repay it. And as things stand now, I doubt that there ever will be.
And from a quick flick of the morning news this quote from St Johnstone skipper Dave Mackay caught my eye,
“Not many people would have thought we’d come here and win, given the form Rangers have been in and the form we’ve been in, which has been patchy,” he told BBC Scotland.
And the obvious question – Who are these people?
(I’m guessing BBC Scotland pundits)
My own feeling is that there is no question that the aura remains. But its thinning all the time.
Good morning.
Here is a podcast for Celtic Underground giving a bit of background on Res12 and touching on LNS.
In achieving the aim of SFA reform this site is very important because whilst Res12 provides locus the ultimate aim of an accountable and transparent SFA is one I think and hope we all share.
https://www.spreaker.com/user/harrybradycu/celtic-underground-no260-a-res-12-update?autoplay=1
HirsutePursuit 23rd September 2015 at 12:28 am #
John Clark.
If there is consent to a sale, legal title passes to the purchaser.
The new owner can legally sell on the goods and pass title to a second new owner.
Imagine then that the first sale is later found to have been based on a fraudulent act – perhaps an agent offers a valuation service and knowingly undervalues the goods to place an accomplice in a position to purchase at a bargain price.
If you are the original seller, you might want your goods returned. Unfortunately, it won’t happen. You can seek monetary compensation from the fraudsters -but ownership now lies with the second purchaser.
I can’t be specific in the current circumstances, but I don’t see any attempt to link events in 2011 to the events of 2012 in such a way that the original £1 sale could be undone.
Even if the events were shown to be linked, the only asset not held as security by Mike Ashley is Ibrox. Only Ibrox is vulnerable.
As far as I can tell, Mike’s ownership of the IP and security on Auchenhowie et al is pretty much bombproof.
==========================================
However, isn’t it the case that the questionable transaction – the 2012 sale of all of the assets of RFC (in administration) by D&P to Sevco – sees the assets still in the hands of the original buyer?
Therefore, given that there has been no complication due to an onward sale of assets to a second buyer the return of goods to the seller would actually be viable remedy.
Smugas says
David Grier was one of the original 4 to have their collar felt last November. Grier was not one of those that had their collars felt again in August.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30084830
Cheers Tyke,
That’s what I thought. That would suggest that the 2011 purchase isn’t the one being particularly scrutinised, no?
zerotolerance,
That would then bring the missing deed of novation into play. The interim buyer (5088) is only the same as the initial buyer (Wavetower a la Whyte) if the business and assets passed through 5088 en route to Sevco Scotland (assuming of course that Whyte is not involved with Sevco Scotland which I’m sure the SFA can clear up for us).
@smugas
The way I’m looking at it the parties to the 2012 transaction were RFC (IA) represented by Duff & Phelps as seller and Sevco Scotland as buyer.
Whether or not the original deal was struck with Sevco 5088 or not and whether there’s a deed of novation or not the reality is that in the actual transaction as executed Sevco Scotland was the buyer directly from the Company now in liquidation. Wavetower and 5088 are irrelevant.
The creditors of the liquidated company are the injured parties and the assets remain with the party they were sold to by their former Administrators.
Just to scratch at an itch,
From The Mail online on 17th November2014
” Gary Withey, 50, David Whitehouse, 49, Paul Clark, 50, and David Grier, 53, were granted bail following a hearing at Glasgow Sheriff Court
All four are accused of involvement in an alleged fraudulent scheme to acquire Rangers in 2011
An arrest warrant was issued for former Rangers owner Craig Whyte, 43, in connection with the investigation ”
This was the item which I think first suggested to me that the original sale, from SDM to Whyte, was going to feature.
It may have been very loose and imprecise reporting by the paper, of course, using 2011 rather than the sale of the assets at a later date..
But if ‘all’ that the accused are charged with is related simply to the way the the assets of the club which CW bought were valued and sold to CG, then the reference to 2011 would be meaningless and inappropriate.
Speculation can grow wild at this point as regards the full nature and extent of any alleged conspiracy and the full list of persons possibly involved from the off in the original sale, and their motivations and ultimate plans.
So idle speculation must be reigned in until October 16th, when the detail will become known of the charges against the accused, who of course, are at present absolutely innocent, and will no doubt mount a solid defence against the accusations.
@Smugas the indictments this month covered both last year’s arrests and this years. http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/whyte-and-green-among-7-indicted-for-rangers-fraud-1-3888558
Last years arrests appear mainly to have been with regard to the 2011 Whyte purchase of the whole shebang. This year’s arrests appear more to do with the 2012 Green led acquisition of the assets. I say that based on Withey being one of the original 4 detained and also Grier and Whyte who on the face of it have little to do with the Green acquisition.
In addition to the depreciated replacement cost element, the land value is problematic. The area in which the Ibrox stadium is located has had and still has a concentration of heavy industry consequently the land is likely to be contaminated by all kinds of unpleasantness heavy metals perhap asbestos and so on. This needs to be removed before the land can be used for a new purpose. These costs would reduce the land value considerably. Additionally part of the building is listed which would lead to planning issues and other extra costs of conversion to a new use or calculation of value in use because of extra maintenance costs and other issues. There is probably asbestos in the building which makes upgrades and maintence possibly much more costly, these factors increase the depreciation element reducing value further.
It would be interesting to so the assumptions used by the valuer in reaching the book value, there may be an assumption of no asbestos or do not know about asbestos which would tend to diminish the accuracy of a value.
The two pet sayings of the valuer are; “valuation is an art not a science” and “which assumptions are to be used”. The first can be correct or it can be the fig leaf of a rogue, the second is a necessary part of the process. Valuation is sometimes the modern incarnation of haruspicy.
Haruspicy? What possible justification can there be for raising the concept of rummaging through the entrails of a dead body in order to profess divine powers when discussing TheRangers? Oh…hud on a minute.
zerotolerance1903 23rd September 2015 at 1:06 pm
That’s before you get into the four major real estate assets – Murray Park, Edmiston House, Ibrox and the Car Park – which regardless of assumptions must have more than a nominal value.
==================0
Edmiston House and the iconic Albion car park were both bought with the IPO money, so didn’t form part of the assets sold by Duff and Phelps.
Homunculus 23rd September 2015 at 12:04 am #
Den 22nd September 2015 at 11:39 pm
Sorry but how did they get the players registrations.
When Rangers were placed into liquidation that was an automatic breach of the players’ contracts if I remember correctly. Most of the players chose not to exercise their TUPE rights and move their contracts to the new club (with the same terms and conditions). The only ones who chose to do that were players who didn’t think they could do better elsewhere. Elbows being a good example.
The bulk of the squad chose to become free agents, as their contracts had been broken, and sorted out deals elsewhere. Their registrations (held by the SFA whilst they were without a club) were then transferred to their new employer.
————————————————————————–
I was quoting data from the accounts where the Player registrations were shown as part of the purchase. Presumably the valuation was for those who were not confident of getting an equivalent or better deal elsewhere.
The expectation was that they would all transfer over when the sale was agreed. The transfer value of the players who left was probably significantly in excess of the £5.5m.
The players registrations were valued at £1.25m and were revalued on consolidation to £1.47m.
All in all it seemed like a bargain deal.
Don’t ask me to justify the valuations in the accounts, In my opinion they are what the rules and the forbearance of the auditors would allow rather than any attempt at genuine valuation.
Green made a big thing about the players who exercised their rights under TUPE but never pursued them for breach of Contract.
Neepheid, can I ask who did they buy it from then if it didn’t come through the administrators? Who benefitted?
@ Christyboy Paul McConville’s (RIP) blog had a copy of the IPO prsopectus
https://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rifc-prospectus.pdf
Page 109 suggests IPO money would be used to buy out the sub lease on the Albion
Page 110 suggests IPO money would be used to buy Edmiston House from Charlotte Ventures (presumably part of MIH or otherwise an SDM co)
Other searching suggests a condition of Craig Whytes takeover was that Lloyds insited he continued paying rent (lease?) on the Albion Car Park which suggests one of their subsidiaries owned either/both the leasehold and/or freehold
Christyboy 23rd September 2015 at 3:09 pm #
Neepheid, can I ask who did they buy it from then if it didn’t come through the administrators? Who benefitted?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Edmiston House was bought from a Sir David Murray company, not sure which one- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2209004/Rangers-chief-exec-Charles-Green-holds-talks-Sir-David-Murray.html
The Albion Car Park freehold was purchased from Capital Bank Property Investments (6) Limited. Sevco already held a lease on this, inherited from the administrators, but the rent under the lease was £300k per annum, so that looks like a proper commercial transaction. In fact probably the most sensible thing Green did (from the company’s point of view!) during his time as CEO.
“Den 22nd September 2015 at 11:39 pm #
“(Low) mentioned his surprise at the sale of the assets for £5.5m… For this price they got the physical assets plus the player registration and other intangible assets.”
Regardless of whether the players chose to join NewGers or not the creditors were IMO denied a fair price for their “assets” – the fact the players TUPE’d, or chose not to, rather than were treated as multi-million pound assets whose sale revenue should have been available to creditors is, for me, as much a scandal as the selling of loads of real estate and material assets for the equivalent of a (admittedly very nice) house in Mayfair, London.
Disclosure: for the record, I was bought and sold as part of a company purchase in the past, so I have experience of being TUPEd.
Oh My God, I am in hysterics
“Chris McLaughlin
@BBCchrismclaug
BBC learns Charles Green to take #Rangers to court in a bid to get club to cover his legal fees after charges relating to his time at Ibrox”
scapaflow 23rd September 2015 at 5:25 pm # Edit
Big hauns? And thr rest. That is some serious size of gonads.
Even Rangers fans must be having a chuckle at that 🙂
Too bizarre for words.
Aye. I knew he had a brass neck, but this is sign of an even harder metal….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34339216
Mair twists than a corkscrew in this never ending Ibrox saga!!
From the BBC website:
Former Rangers chief executive Charles Green is taking the club to court in a bid to get them to pay his legal fees after he was charged with serious organised crime offences.
BBC Scotland has learned that Mr Green claims his contract with the Ibrox club entitled him to legal cover during and after his spell in charge.
His lawyers have written to Rangers and want a court ruling on the claim.
It is understood the fees involved could be in excess of £500,000.
The court ruling could happen as early as next week.
Mr Green and a number of others, including the club’s former owner Craig Whyte, were arrested and charged earlier this month.
The moves followed an investigation by Police Scotland into off-field events at the club in 2012 and 2013.
_____
Nice to see he is such a consummate businessman he had himself covered for criminal charges! I wonder if TRFC/RIFC have suitable insurance cover? Wouldn’t it be so typical if, as part of their austerity measures, they cancelled any such legal cover!
If, as the article suggests, the possible costs are in the region of £500,000, then to lose at the court hearing could be more than the business can take. There’s certainly an ever increasing amount of uncertainty at Ibrox!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34339216
I suppose in a bizarre way he may have a point. Many of his charges may be sub texted with, “Whilst acting as CEO you did this”, or “In your capacity as director”, etc.
As he was acting on behalf of the clumpany, they may be obliged to defend him…..And themselves for that matter!.
Allyjambo 23rd September 2015 at 6:09 pm #
I could see cover for civil actions, but criminal proceedings? isn’t there a long standing rule about employees being liable for any thing that results from their criminal actions? Speeding fines and Parking tickets are the obvious low level examples.
Den 23rd September 2015 at 2:46 pm
As I understand it the way a players registration is valued for the accounts is by taking the amount paid for that registration and reducing it to zero over the terms of the players contract. I believe it is called amortisation. It’s kind of like deprecation but less tangible.
Like the “value” of the stadium for accounting purposes it does not necessarily represent what anyone thinks they could get if they sold the asset. It’s just more accounting mumbo jumbo.
Accountants, valuers and lawyers. Rogues, vagabonds and comic singers.
scapaflow 23rd September 2015 at 6:32 pm #
You are probably correct, unless the company’s liability could be classed as civil, or non-criminal, in that the claim is contractual. It might be possible for the company to argue (with an insurer) that they haven’t committed a criminal act, but are bound contractually to fund a previous director/employee’s legal costs regardless of what area of the law the case comes under.
Total conjecture, of course, but isn’t it fun? Charles Green, isn’t he such a wag?
Amortisation -until the death or we don’t do walking away
Allyjambo 23rd September 2015 at 6:50 pm #
um yeah wag, one word for it
Edit
Hat Tip to Barca, but if Green has this in his contract, any bets on it being in Ahmad’s as well?
This is old but I hadn’t seen it before and was interested in the way some of it was worded. Interested because it was accurate. Apologies to anyone who has read this specific article before.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34127507
When an agreement with creditors could not be struck to allow the club to exit administration, a sale of Rangers’ assets to a consortium led by Mr Green was concluded.
He was at the helm when Rangers were allowed to join the Third Division but stepped down in 2013 following allegations that he was working in conjunction with Mr Whyte, 44.
======================
“… allow the club to exit administration …”
“… a sale of Rangers’ assets …”
“… Rangers were allowed to join the Third Division …”
No holding companies, no sale of Rangers, no relegation or demotion. Just what actually happened.
bfbpuzzled 23rd September 2015 at 6:53 pm
Few people have been able to walk away from death. Only two that I can think of immediately and one made it happen for the other.
http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/insurance/8271-
protecting-a-company-and-its-directors-dao-insurance
Protecting a company and its directors: D&O insurance
(It is a long read)
This paragraph goes to the heart of what this insurance does.
Structure of a D&O policy.
if he has been a very naughty boy, but as the article says “D&O insurance is relatively novel” and not a class I was involved with.
The first line,
“D&O policies provide cover for directors and also companies who indemnify directors and officers to the extent permissible by law”
would probably not indemnify
I would guess that, “
claims his contract with the Ibrox club entitled him to legal cover during and after his spell in charge”, means the club will have to stump up if the court rules in 
favour. oops.
Just seen this as a suggested post on my Facebook timeline (that’s worrying in itself!).
Is this normal for clubs to already be offering ‘part’ season books? Seems awful early to me and perhaps a sign of the financial woes we are talking about?
http://www.rangers.talent-sport.co.uk/PagesPublic/ProductBrowse/productSeason.aspx
If the link doesn’t work , the offer is on Rangers official site under Season Tickets.
nawlite 23rd September 2015 at 7:16 pm #
We know they are desperate for money, but they are probably just trying to cash in on the good (better than expected) start they have made before results possibly start to go against them.
I’m sure, though, that much of the optimism has led to the belief that they could win one of the top two cups this season, and, in turn, has led to the increased crowds at league matches. That optimism might well have taken a bit of a knock last night, and we know how they react when things don’t go their way on the field.
I thought the same when I heard about this myself nawlite.
I don’t think “half-season” tickets are that unusual, however it’s the first time I have heard of one being sold so early.
Like you I believe it is probably a sign of cash flow issues.
I think people considering the purchase should realise that something like 20 – 25% of the home games have already been played. So it’s not really a discount per se, or not much of one.
Tykebhoy and Neepheid, thanks for that. So when the Rangers went into administration, these two were separate from the rest and not considered part of the deal. I wonder if the previous valuations pre admin included them?
John Clark 23rd September 2015 at 12:09 pm #
Just to scratch at an itch,
From The Mail online on 17th November2014
” Gary Withey, 50, David Whitehouse, 49, Paul Clark, 50, and David Grier, 53, were granted bail following a hearing at Glasgow Sheriff Court
All four are accused of involvement in an alleged fraudulent scheme to acquire Rangers in 2011
An arrest warrant was issued for former Rangers owner Craig Whyte, 43, in connection with the investigation ”
This was the item which I think first suggested to me that the original sale, from SDM to Whyte, was going to feature.
******
John, there is of course one little canary who was there at every single step of the journey who doesn’t get mentioned much nowadays. Now why is that?
Wee anecdote, in the best Corsican tradition: reception was held just before the start of the season at our canary’s original club specifically for invited guests who might be interested in lightening the load on the current sugar daddy – helping to keep a roof over the loft, you might say. Despite receiving a personal invitation our canary was, ahem, stuck in his cage and unable to attend as the big, bad black and white cat was keeping guard outside.
Someone mentioned valuation of Ibrox, I no longer have files but I’m pretty sure Corsica valued it at £15m based upon prevailing land prices, size and potential planning consents. IIRC, it was actually worth a lot less as a football ground because the rental yield was poor.
RANGERS say they are unaware of any move by ex-boss Charles Green to claim legal fees from the club to help fight charges of serious organised crime.
The Ibrox club insist they have not been approached by the former chief executive who is set for a courtroom showdown in relation to the acquisition of the assets of the club in 2012.
Green, has been charged with conspiracy, fraud and an offence under Section 190 of the Companies Act 2006.
The 62-year-old denies all the charges.
It has been reported that Green is set to take Rangers to court amid claims his contract entitled him to legal cover during and after his spell in charge at Ibrox.
His lawyers have written to Rangers and want a court ruling on the claim, according to the BBC.
The legals fees are reportedly in excess of £500,000.
But Rangers deny that an approach has been made.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-deny-charles-green-contacted-6501960
What an amazing coincidence that Big Hauns in his capacity as an Officer of the Company (See links below) granted himself such an insurance cover. Did he provide his own crystal ball or did he also grant himself access to the club’s?
http://www.hilldickinson.com/pdf/Directors%20and%20officers%20liability.pdf (See 2.2 on page 5 of 41)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/36
As I selected the above links from the result of an internet search for Company Officer DuckDuckGo,com and I have only a very limited understanding of The CA 2006 can any of our resident leagal eagles please explain wtf Sections 1121-1123 actually mean in relation to
‘s /the company’s / the club’s potential liability? Or to put it in lay (wo)men’s terms “Help ma boab! 😆
Homunculus 23rd September 2015 at 6:45 pm #
Den 23rd September 2015 at 2:46 pm
As I understand it the way a players registration is valued for the accounts is by taking the amount paid for that registration and reducing it to zero over the terms of the players contract. I believe it is called amortisation. It’s kind of like deprecation but less tangible.
Like the “value” of the stadium for accounting purposes it does not necessarily represent what anyone thinks they could get if they sold the asset. It’s just more accounting mumbo jumbo.
Accountants, valuers and lawyers. Rogues, vagabonds and comic singers.
======
Indeed amortization is a standard business accounting practice.
Others more knowledgeable might be able to confirm but I guess it’s applied to assets that are know to depreciate over time.
In the case of the players it’s not their contracts but the players registration and as well as the cost of the players registration it may include third party fees (ie agents).
An understandable thing to do as, while still under contract the registration has potential resale value which will diminish as the player gets closer to being able to sign a pre-contract.
Finally, and I may be very wrong on this, but I suspect classifying the registration as an asset match be to do with claiming back VAT?
The Companies Act 2006 is of some interest in relation to CG’s belief that his legal costs should be met by RIFC. I don’t pretend to fully understand the following sections, and might be wholly wrong, but these provisions seem to me not to allow any meeting[ whether directly or indirectly via ‘insurance’] of expenses in criminal matters:
“232 Provisions protecting directors from liability
(1) Any provision that purports to exempt a director of a company (to any extent)
from any liability that would otherwise attach to him in connection with any
negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust in relation to the company
is void.
(2) Any provision by which a company directly or indirectly provides an indemnity (to any extent) for a director of the company, or of an associated company, against any liability attaching to him in connection with any negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust in relation to the company of which he is a director is void, except as permitted by—
(a) section 233 (provision of insurance),
(b) section 234 (qualifying third party indemnity provision), or
(c) section 235 (qualifying pension scheme indemnity provision).
(3) This section applies to any provision, whether contained in
a company’s articles or in any contract with the company or otherwise.
(4) Nothing in this section prevents a company’s articles from making such
provision as has previously been lawful for dealing with conflicts of interest.
233 Provision of insurance
Section 232(2) (voidness of provisions for indemnifying directors) does not prevent a company from purchasing and maintaining for a director of , or of an associated company, insurance against any such liability as is mentioned in that subsection.
234 Qualifying third party indemnity provision
(1) Section 232(2) (voidness of provisions for indemnifying directors) does not apply to qualifying third party indemnity provision.
2) Third party indemnity provision means provision for indemnity against liability incurred by the director to a person other than the company or an associated company.Such provision is qualifying third party indemnity provision if the following requirements are met.
(3) The provision must not provide any indemnity against—
(a) any liability of the director to pay—
(i) a fine imposed in criminal proceedings, or
(ii) a sum payable to a regulatory authority by way of a penalty in respect of non-compliance with any requirement of a regulatory nature (however arising); or
(b) any liability incurred by the director—
(i) in defending criminal proceedings in which he is convicted,
or
(ii) in defending civil proceedings brought by the company, or an associated company, in which judgment is given against him, or
(iii) in connection with an application for relief (see subsection (6)) in which the court refuses to grant him relief.”
Any legals on this evening who can keep us right?
parttimearab 23rd September 2015 at 9:03 pm
I really only mentioned the contract because as I understand it the amount is reduced to zero over the length of the contract. So if you let the contract run out then the registration is not worth anything to you. The player is a free agent and his registration is taken by the national association until he finds another club.
Sale or purchase of a players registration is indeed a standard rated sale for VAT purposes. Provided the sale is within the UK.
That’s actually why it’s probably better (financially) to sell your players registrations to European clubs, not including clubs based in the UK.
If the buying club is willing to pay £6m then if it is to say Spain then you get to keep the £6m, it was a zero rated supply. However if it is to England than you have to declare £1m of that as VAT and pay it to HMRC.
woodstein 23rd September 2015 at 7:16 pm
If I’d not been daunted by you warning of length and read the link you posted rather than relying upon your summary I’d have worded my post differently (and I can’t amend it now that other’s have posted!).
I thought that the article was a worthwhile and not as long as you implied. I particularly liked the second paragraph of the following section.
Directors’ duties
On 1 October 2007, the 2006 Act codified and/or extended directors’ duties. The majority of the duties incorporated into the 2006 Act already existed at common law. The new duties included a duty to act in good faith to promote the success of the company; to act in accordance with the constitution of the company and to exercise powers for purposes conferred by the company’s memorandum and articles of association; to exercise independent judgment; and to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence.
From 1 October 2008, certain additional directors’ duties were codified under the 2006 Act, including a duty to avoid conflicts of interest, be they direct or indirect (although there are provisions for such conflicts to be authorised); a duty not to accept benefits from third parties; and a duty to declare an interest (direct or indirect) in proposed transactions or arrangements.
How Big Hauns can plausibly deny any conflict of interest should be ……. well, …… interesting!
Homunculus 23rd September 2015 at 7:02 pm
Whoever wrote that for the Beeb obviously has no understanding of the lies that underpin what I like to call The Rangers Paradox. he obviously hasn’t read “Downfall” 😉
StevieBC 22nd September 2015 at 7:30 pm
1. Fortunately, we were divorced several years ago 🙂
2. I like them nearly as much as Cheech and Chong and other similar comedy acts!
Seriously, the photie was taken at KSC during the summer – and it was very very bright 🙂
The shades were a freebie from Nike many moons ago. I think they are still rather stylish 😎 – and value for money.
Homunculus 23rd September 2015 at 12:04 am
What happened to the Player Registrations “valued” at £1.25 million in the “Sale Agreement” from D&P to Sevco 5088 and/or Scotland etc.
Oh for sight of a “certified copy” of the “final” 5-Way document to put us out of our misery!!! 😕
We should remember that CG has been charged under section 190 of the Companies Act. This, one assumes, is in relation to his position as director of Sevco 5088 and the allegations made by CW.
If he is found guilty, the principal beneficiary of the offence will have been TRFC. CG, of course, also acted as a director of TRFC in relation to the purchase of Rangers’ assets.
There would appear to be a real risk to TRFC’s position if things go pear-shaped for CG.
With that in mind, you would think, from a practical point of view, it would be in Rangers best interest to make sure that CG has the best defence possible.
From a PR point of view, for the club to be seen to be voluntarily paying for his defence is a complete nightmare.
Just another way of looking at today’s developments.
Between 2011 and 2016 the UK banks have made provisions totalling £46 Billion, yes £46 Billion, to cover the costs of their bad conduct.
It does put all this Rangers stuff into a bit of perspective. Still, I do wonder how much of that £46 Billion can be traced back to the activities of Mr Masterton and his merry band. The oft mentioned Mr Greir didn’t always work for D&P 😉
Homunculus 23rd September 2015 at 9:19 pm
Sale or purchase of a players registration is indeed a standard rated sale for VAT purposes. Provided the sale is within the UK.
That’s actually why it’s probably better (financially) to sell your players registrations to European clubs, not including clubs based in the UK.
========
Everyday is a school day……I had no idea that sales to overseas clubs were zero Vat…..Thanks for that as it’ll help on something else I’m working on
Homunculus 23rd September 2015 at 6:45 pm #
Den 23rd September 2015 at 2:46 pm
As I understand it the way a players registration is valued for the accounts is by taking the amount paid for that registration and reducing it to zero over the terms of the players contract. I believe it is called amortisation. It’s kind of like deprecation but less tangible.
Like the “value” of the stadium for accounting purposes it does not necessarily represent what anyone thinks they could get if they sold the asset. It’s just more accounting mumbo jumbo.
Accountants, valuers and lawyers. Rogues, vagabonds and comic singers.
—————————————-
To be clear I said not to ask me to justify the valuations because my view was that they were massaged to report the best financial performance given litteral interpretation of the rules and regardless of the spirit of the rules.
Your explanation of the valuation of the players registration is how I understand it. I broadly agree with this method as it is based on expenditure (cost) which will benefit the Company in more than on Financial year.
Amortisation is basically the same as Depreciation, mostly amortisation is used when referring to Intangible assets (ones you can’t touch) and depreciation for Tangible assets. The effect is the same; to reduce the value of an asset and charge that value as a cost in the Income Statement.
HirsutePursuit 23rd September 2015 at 10:02 pm.
“With that in mind, you would think, from a practical point of view, it would be in Rangers best interest to make sure that CG has the best defence possible.”
———————————————————————–
Indeed HP. It must also be remembered that Sevco had to “prove” to the SFA that Craig Whyte was not involved, “In any way”. If any court decision shows that he was involved…………………….???
Scapaflow 23rd September 2015 at 6:32 pm # You are …
Posted on 23rd September 2015 by in Uncategorised
Comment on SFM Podcast #6: Dave King & Oldco by Allyjambo.
scapaflow 23rd September 2015 at 6:32 pm #
You are probably correct, unless the company’s liability could be classed as civil, or non-criminal, in that the claim is contractual. It might be possible for the company to argue (with an insurer) that they haven’t committed a criminal act, but are bound contractually to fund a previous director/employee’s legal costs regardless of what area of the law the case comes under.
Total conjecture, of course, but isn’t it fun? Charles Green, isn’t he such a wag?
============================================
I’m certain he thinks he is covered. I’m in no doubt it was convened. I’m really surprised CW has not similar cover. However did the insurance continue after he left?
Messrs Llambias and his SD sidekick cut a fair few costs on arrival.
Could be RIFC may need to get them back to find out what those savings were.
HirsutePursuit 23rd September 2015 at 10:02 pm #
“..We should remember that CG has been charged under section 190 of the Companies Act. ”
________
Far from remembering, I have to say I did not know that fact!
And I’m grateful to you, Hirsute P.
So, the charge is that Green, as a director of Sevco 5088 entered into an arrangement under which he acquired from Sevco 5088 a substantial non-cash asset, without that arrangement having been approved by a resolution of the members of the company..
in other words , the ‘novation’ to SevcoScotland would be invalid, if the charge were proven.
That certainly would blow the idea that RIFC had any title to the assets sky high.
I follow your inference that King’s board would really need to help Green in his defence, for if he loses, the game’s a bogy-for all of them.
And as you remark, for the RIFC Board to pay out to defend Green is not going to go down well with those who have cast him as the devil incarnate!
As a wee aside, I wonder whether and to what extent any personnel from the sixth floor might conceivably be called as witnesses? And on whose side? 😀
Den 23rd September 2015 at 10:58 pm #
Homunculus 23rd September 2015 at 6:45 pm #
Den 23rd September 2015 at 2:46 pm
As I understand it the way a players registration is valued for the accounts is by taking the amount paid for that registration and reducing it to zero over the terms of the players contract. I believe it is called amortisation. It’s kind of like deprecation but less tangible.
Like the “value” of the stadium for accounting purposes it does not necessarily represent what anyone thinks they could get if they sold the asset. It’s just more accounting mumbo jumbo.
Accountants, valuers and lawyers. Rogues, vagabonds and comic singers.
—————————————-
To be clear I said not to ask me to justify the valuations because my view was that they were massaged to report the best financial performance given litteral interpretation of the rules and regardless of the spirit of the rules.
Your explanation of the valuation of the players registration is how I understand it. I broadly agree with this method as it is based on expenditure (cost) which will benefit the Company in more than on Financial year.
Amortisation is basically the same as Depreciation, mostly amortisation is used when referring to Intangible assets (ones you can’t touch) and depreciation for Tangible assets. The effect is the same; to reduce the value of an asset and charge that value as a cost in the Income Statement.
==========================================
Its actually a shame that the Collyer Bristow case ended with the insurance pay-out, not for the creditors but for issues like this.
The judge had directed both parties to produce a fair market value for all the the Oldco players just to see what quantum the argument was over. Might have been hilarious or interesting depending on whether your were a judge or Charles Green or vice versa.
John Clark 23rd September 2015 at 11:21 pm #
HirsutePursuit 23rd September 2015 at 10:02 pm #
“..We should remember that CG has been charged under section 190 of the Companies Act. ”
________
As a wee aside, I wonder whether and to what extent any personnel from the sixth floor might conceivably be called as witnesses? And on whose side?
————————————
John Clark(e), I never for a moment had you down as being THAT mischievous. You had a wee snifter already? 🙂
For anyone interested on the ‘fitba manager side of things there were not only fisticuffs betwixed the ‘well bois and stewards at Morton but also in the dressing room.
Sadly the players didn’t fight on the park. So ta ta Iain B thanks for the play offs, but your another manager who doesn’t quite get that Scottish fitba is actually a lot better than gets billed on SKY and Greenock has always been a hard place to go.
How could the players, change to the new club, when the new club didn’t exist at time of changeover ( Club 12 ). I thought the players registration was held by the association. If there was no club, there couldn’t be any transfer of players.
I don’t know anymore!
I’m confused!
sannoffymesssoitizz 23rd September 2015 at 11:46 pm #
‘.. I never for a moment had you down as being THAT mischievous. You had a wee snifter already? :-)’
_______
On a Wednesday night? ….. Too right, I have! As I listened to Radio Scotland’s coverage of tonight’s quite surprising, and really interesting, football.
I’m just a wee bit miffed that I didn’t try to find the Portobello shop that sells’ Fat Yak’ after Mrs C and I had had a very pleasant stroll yesterday along the promenade.
‘Tennent’s Special’ somehow doesn’t have the romance of Oz!
But a quarter gill of Whyte [geez, there’s that name again!] and Mackay at (Sainsbury’s] £15.00 is not to be sniffed at. Well, sniffed at, and then swallied. 😀
And now, as old Sammy Pepys would say, ‘so to bed’.