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
At £15 per litre, of course, not per gill. As many of you will have understood!
briggsbhoy 22nd September 2015 at 11:50 pm #
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 🙂
=====================================
If we’re looking at lyrics of The Who songs, I would suggest that “Won’t Get Fooled Again” may be more appropriate than “Who Are You” when it comes to the machinations of the Ibrox franchise.
Homunculus 23rd September 2015 at 7:33 pm #
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.
===================================
Half season tickets are common place throughout the game. Three quarters season tickets are not! As for cash flow issues the support and many in the media happily blether among themselves about how much will be spent next season. Who can blame them when the Chairman said not so long ago Rangers finances are the envy of world football!
watched trfc v stj on beeb, no sound after 2 mins,primary schoolboys commenting isnt good listening and went to easter road last night…
how warburton and weir thought these ‘ blackpool beach taxis’ in central defence were a better bet than darren macgregor is utterly bizarre…….
…somewhere in a courtroom not so far away….
Defendant…So I put it to you your lordship that he was of course acting on behalf of the company but we are of course the club which is totally different, totally, absolutely.
Lordship….Whit?
You would be forgiven for thinking that Warbs had a financial investment in these players,it wouldn’t be so,would it!!!
yourhavingalaugh 24th September 2015 at 9:43 am #
You would be forgiven for thinking that Warbs had a financial investment in these players,it wouldn’t be so,would it!!!
=========================
You could also be forgiven for thinking that a large proportion of the SMSM had a financial investment in selfsame players, such is the square footage of guff dedicated to boosting their status within the game. :slamb: 👿 :slamb:
Happy Birthday to Scotland’s recent youngest, most promising new manager, newly extricated from gardening duties.
Comment I made in relation to the sale from RFC(IL) to Sevco Scotland at 1:06pm yesterday (which was live as it’s been thumbed and quoted) appears to have been moved in to moderation
Not complaining, just wondering for future reference, where I might have strayed into questionable territory?
Notice not much talk of a ‘gulf’ this morning after the Hibees beating a full strength Aberdeen last night.
Just goes to show what cups can throw up in the one off match.
Mind you getting beat by St J and seeing the team most folks see as your nearest rival for the championship beat the premiership leaders must throw another worry into the magic hat.
SSB last night had Alex Rae and Guidi still taking about money a plenty to revamp the Ibrox squad come the next two windows. Rae even suggesting Warburton didn’t really have the time to get the players he wanted this season and this was the best he could do with the time available.
Blinkers still on.
Apologies ZeroTolerance1903
Your ‘list’ of questionable things surrounding the sale of assets, strayed a bit too perilously into sub-judice territory I think.
We don’t want to get too anal about that and throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we are being cautious.
The guidelines are as follows;
Iainagain 11.28pm
That is the best explanation of amortisation I’ve read in spite of years of reading CQN 🙂
Possible good news on the premises front which Tris will report on tomorrow along with a new blog.
Meantime, the Motherwell situation does fascinate somewhat. Barraclough looked to be an imaginative choice 9 months ago, but up and coming managers from outside Scotland are finding it pretty tough at the top.
Motherwell’s most successful manager was David Hay (66% winrate) – although that was in a promotion season and only through 39 games. Most successful in the top league is Stuart McCall (45% wins). The two imported managers with no experience of Scotland were Gannon and Barraclough who were spectacular failures by comparison.
McCall would be my choice if I was a ‘Well fan – but Paul Hartley might also be in the mix. I hope they give it to a Scottish manager who is committed to bringing through young Scots.
On another point, you would think that Barraclough ‘s situation would have the effect of tempering the enthusiastically high expectations the MSM have for Warburton. He also looks to be an imaginative choice, and he is doing well, but he’s not in the top league yet.
Talking about bringing through young Scottish players (Big Pink), yesterday I looked up the match report for the Celtic v Raith Rovers cup final in 1994. Memories were a wee bit vague, but what surprised me was out of the starting 11 for Celtic, 10 were Scottish. The odd man out was Tony Mowbray. How things have changed!
On the positive side RD has brought in a few good Scots to the point where if Gordon Strachan so wished he could field an entire Scotland team from Celtic (as if! lol).
Going back to Green’s insurance. If the court’s allow this, it will be a terrible precedent. In effect criminal conduct by company officers/employees will be further normalised. It would be another big step by UK PLC into banana republic territory.
If it takes primary legislation to outlaw this, then I hope someone brings it forward as a matter of urgency
@Big Pink
Thanks for the feedback. I guess it can be a fine line between comment on public domain information and sub-judice.
Re: VAT on players. As we are part of the European Economic Community isn’t VAT applicable on sales between EU countries? Hence why you can’t claim VAT back on purchases when travelling to EU countries?
scapaflow 24th September 2015 at 11:32 am #
Going back to Green’s insurance. If the court’s allow this, it will be a terrible precedent.
============================
Will it be a precedent at all? It can’t be the first time that an officer of a company has sought the support of that company (financial or otherwise) in his defence for his actions on behalf of the company.
Zero, in civil matters probably not, but criminal? Big red line here, or at least there bloody well should be. I really fail to see how an officer or employee can take criminal action on behalf of a company. It’s an oxymoron.
Notwithstanding that no criminal action has yet been proven, does it serve a purpose to separate the act of an individual from the company if those acts were done on behalf of the company, possibly with the knowledge and approval of the board?
I would agree with you if we were talking about “rogue” acts by an officer of a company. However, if the conduct in question is carried out with the full knowledge and consent of the company then should not the company defend the officer against any allegations related to that conduct?
Would we not expect Volkswagen to fund the defence of Martin Winkerton if, hypothetically, he were to face criminal or civil charges in relation to their activity.
scapaflow 24th September 2015 at 11:32 am #
Going back to Green’s insurance. If the court’s allow this, it will be a terrible precedent. In effect criminal conduct by company officers/employees will be further normalised. It would be another big step by UK PLC into banana republic territory.
If it takes primary legislation to outlaw this, then I hope someone brings it forward as a matter of urgency
_________
I think we should ignore the idea that there might be ‘insurance’ involved, this was introduced by myself yesterday on a completely speculative basis. All we know, at this stage, is that Green is claiming his legal fees should be paid by TRFC/RIFC because his contract says so. It could be a Catch 22 thing for him because, if his claim is upheld, it might well be used to show he anticipated possible criminal proceedings over his dealings on behalf of the company! It’s certainly an intriguing turn of events, and perhaps one that will give our legal system a few nightmares in adjudicating over a contract that gives financial assistance to someone facing criminal charges!
AJ fair point
Zero, it was made very clear to me many years ago, that there was no defence to obeying illegal orders.
Edit
Predictive text is a curse lol
scapaflow 24th September 2015 at 12:19 pm #
Zero, it was made very clear to me many years ago, that there was no defence to obeying illegal orders.
==================================
Which is the case for charges been brought against individuals for the actions of a company.
However, no allegations have yet been proven which is why we go through trials and such like.
My only point on this is that I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing that a company would fund the defence of an officer of the company for their conduct whilst an officer of the company.
This was in response to your suggestion that this was a terrible precedent, whilst I think is neither precedent nor (necessarily) terrible.
My generation has some apposite lyrics well sung on TV by Liam Gallagher recently ( and I never thought that I would say that being a follower of more specialised music generally)
Possibly barking up the wrong tree. As I understand most of the activity that has led to Charles Green being indicted happened before Sevco 5088 even existed even if it did ultimately lead to its existence. He therefore could not have been a director or employee of the clumpany. Of course if it turns out the indictment only relates to the switcheroo then he was at that time the sole director of 5088.
Forgive my ignorance here but if Charles Green’s contract was along the lines of his legal bills being covered for any action taken against him, in relation to anything he did in his role as Chairman / Director or whatever of the company then what would the issue be.
If it’s a contactual obligation on the company then it’s a contractual obligation on the company. The fact that some people may have assumed his guilt before he has even gone to trial is irrelevant.
The man is innocent until proven guilty. Even if he weren’t then why would that change the contents of his contract. There seems to be an attitude of “how dare he, the man is shameless”. That may well be true, but isn’t it also irrelevant.
zerotolerance1903 24th September 2015 at 12:41 pm #
scapaflow 24th September 2015 at 12:19 pm #
Zero, it was made very clear to me many years ago, that there was no defence to obeying illegal orders.
==================================
Which is the case for charges been brought against individuals for the actions of a company.
However, no allegations have yet been proven which is why we go through trials and such like.
My only point on this is that I don’t think it is necessarily a bad thing that a company would fund the defence of an officer of the company for their conduct whilst an officer of the company.
This was in response to your suggestion that this was a terrible precedent, whilst I think is neither precedent nor (necessarily) terrible.
———————————————————————–
I’m with ZT on this one. If officers of a company were not covered for lawsuits, etc they would not do anything or even agree to hold office! One innocent but wrong move could wipe them out financially.
That’s why D&O insurance is common.
I had experience though of one employee, working overseas, who had almost certainly been naughty but the facts were fairly murky at the time. Won’t bore you with the details but as part of his leaving settlement he sought some kind of indemnity from possible criminal charges in those foreign climes.
We were OK covering legal costs relating to acts carried out on behalf of the company but drew the line at covering criminal penalties. He would have been fired in such circumstances anyway if he had not already left our employ.
He very pragmatically skedaddled from the overseas location and that was the last I heard of him or any charges.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Zero, we are I think in complete agreement on civil matters, however, when the conduct becomes potentially criminal, we are galaxies apart.
Let me explain my position this way. When the banks crashed, Darling dished out get out of jail free cards like confetti. Now there is an argument to be made that it was a national emergency and expediency was therefore the pragmatic course to follow.
However, expediency has consequences. Most of the £46 Billion in provisions is the result of conduct AFTER the banking crash. I bet a £1 to bucket of wotsit, that if Darling had gone after Goodwin, Hester, Fairhead et al, with the full force of the law, then that £46 Billion in provisions would not exist, or would be tiny.
Homunculus
People are indeed innocent until proven guilty. However, in my view the only responsible course of action with an employee facing criminal charges, is disciplinary action. That may mean suspension pending resolution or dismissal, depending on the circumstances. Zero tolerance in other words.
The current SFA Club Licensing document is out at
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2015/2015%20Club%20Licesning%20Manual%20-%20Parts%203%20&%204.pdf
Only had a quick look. More fuel to club company debate but significantly 3.1.1 looks like a partial lift from Article 12 of UEFA FFP and if so and it is new ( I don’t have last years ) then it goes some way to avoiding the nonsense its absence began in 2012 with regard to continuing SFA membership domestically.
It also sets out quite clearly what is required of the licensee applicant but says nothing about SFA role in monitoring the UEFA rules post grant of license, which is fair enough given its about licensing of Scottish clubs for domestic as well as a basis for a UEFA licence.
3.3.6 Is also significant in terms of what did not happen in June 2011 bullet point 2 where a significant change was not reported thus excluding UEFA.
Article 24 in Section 5 of UEFA might prove a hurdle in terms of Security of Ground Tenure if its not settled by the time TRFC qualify for Europe….
Article 45 begs the question did a written contract with a football company exist when RFC applied for UEFA Licence before 2012? It covers what happens if a company (with whom a written contract exists presumably) is liquidated…
Art 46 begs same question.
Art 47 makes role of independent auditor key.
Art 50 as for 47 see the Annex 3 Schedules and templates. Much depends on how well an “independent” auditor, hired by the club presumably, does their job. In terms of tax why not get HMRC to confirm? The authority exists to do so.
Art 52. This need to supply future financial forecasts was avoided in 2011 as no breach identified because of what UEFA were told. Very handy for a club going into administration 8 months later.
There is a lot in Part 4 Annex on accounts for our experts there to chew over if they want, but whoever is looking after TRFC accounts (or is it TRIFC ?) will have to be aware of them particularly the Assessment Points a to f (going concern etc).
Lots to digest but a clearer picture of the rules published so some transparency there. All we need is less reticence to explain how some rules appear to have been circumvented by the licensee and how the licensor fulfilled the monitoring duties under UEFA FFP in 2011 and we can move on.
https://soundcloud.com/harrybradycu-2 No 260
(and I bet you will all be glad of that) 🙂
scapaflow24th September 2015 at 1:28 pm
I can see where you are coming from, however given that the person is still innocent would the suspension be on full pay. Could you really suspend someone and refuse to pay them, potentially for a protracted period, months or years, based purely on allegations against them. No matter who the alligators were.
PS, yes that was deliberate, but I have heard it said.
Homunculus 24th September 2015 at 1:46 pm
Fair point, I should have used Gardening Leave rather than suspension for clarity.
I still cannot reconcile myself to the idea that it is possible for an officer or employee to commit criminal acts on behalf of a company. To me that would be situation where both the the employee and the Chain of Command involved in issuing the orders should be facing prosecution, along with the company itself.
This culture we have slipped into of dishing out fines to the company, while not punishing the personnel, is simply creating more white collar crime.
Wandered off Green a wee bit
, but the Green’s of this world conduct themselves the way they do, because that kind of behaviour has been normalised.
Section 234 of the Companies Act 2006 contains the following:
“(3) The provision must not provide any indemnity against […] 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”
My reading of this is that a company director may be entitled to have their legal fees paid in a criminal case, but would need to pay them back in the event of conviction.
CG does not own the assets bought in the liquidation sale, and to my knowledge, never has. The assets were purchased by Sevco Scotland, and again, to my knowledge, legal title is theirs.
They came into Sevco’s hands through the actions of their office bearer, CG, who then launched an I.P.O. on behalf of the company raising £22m, and the assets in question, formed a large part of the sales delivery.
The capital proceeds of the IPO, then became the capital asset of Sevco, to do with as their want.
Therefore Sevco received a double whammy through CG’s actions re the asset sale. The assets themselves, and the sums raised.
It’s difficult to say he was not acting for the benefit of the company.
Here are latest Licensing Levels.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2015/Licensed%20Clubs%202015%20PDF.pdf
Wonder why Hamilton refused a UEFA licence?
I thought Hearts would have moved out of Entry Level on Finance and Admin by now.
It seems to me, not in relation to Hearts btw but all clubs, Scottish Club Licencing rules are more akin to The Pirates Code – they be more guidelines than actual rules.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6kgS_AwuH0
Welcome aboard The Black Pearl that is Scottish football. 🙂
The man of many convictions has issued a statement admitting that Green did approach the company demanding that they pay for his (Green’s) defence. For the first time ever, I think, I find myself agreeing with King. It’s a funny old world
“STATEMENT on behalf of Rangers Chairman Dave King
Charles Green approached the Club prior to his arrest and demanded that we pay his legal costs in respect of his co-operation with Police Scotland in its criminal investigation into his time as an officer of the Club.
I advised him that we would not do so. He was subsequently arrested and has now approached the Court to compel the Club to pay the legal costs of his defence to the criminal charges. This application will be strongly resisted.”
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/10191-dave-king-statement
scapaflow 24th September 2015 at 3:11 pm
I suppose the matter all comes down to what was in Green’s contract.
Let’s not forget that when it comes to Gardening Services DCK appeared to agree McCoist was entitled to whatever was agreed within his contract.
Surely the same principles must apply to Green, who let’s not forget stepped down voluntarily and thus was not sacked for misconduct or any other breach of contract that would have more chance of making any agreement null and void.
Presumably this will be strongly defended in the same manner Ahmad’s freezing of funds and claim for cash were? How did that one work out again?
Still much fun to be had.
scapaflow24th September 2015 at 1:56 pm
Surely it is always the Officers of a company which commit the criminal acts. The company, whilst legally a person in it’s own right cannot actually do anything. However it can be prosecuted, along with the people who actually commited the acts.
I don’t know if that even makes sense.
Homunculus 24th September 2015 at 3:28 pm #
It does tend to give one a headache
I look at prosecuting companies in two ways:
One. There should be some recognition that the law has been broken, and the “ends of justice served”.
Two. If only individuals are held to account, the the company’s ultimate beneficiaries, the share holders face no moral hazard. By prosecuting & if successful fining, (cos that’s all you cab really do with a company), you hit the reputation of the company and the shareholder funds. Of course, the fines really need to be eye watering to be effective. The punishment has to hurt in other words.
I accept that there is an argument that says, if the company ends up going out of business what about the innocent people who lose their jobs? Its a fair argument, but, in my view this harsh reality is outweighed by the benefits gained by discouraging other companies from behaving in the same fashion.
As Voltaire said of poor old Admiral Byng:
“From time to time it is necessary to shoot one to encourage the others”
WOTTPI
Surely that would depend on whether the terms of the contract are enforceable in the context of criminal proceedings, which I imagine is what the court case is about. If the court says yes they are enforceable, then I stand by my view that urgent legislation would be required to close the loophole
Any chance Charlie could use the conditions imposed on his enterprise by the 5-way agreement as an excuse for actions taken ? Not sure of the timeline .
From the “Rangers” website. Isn’t this the opposite of what the Record was reporting 12 hours ago?
STATEMENT on behalf of Rangers Chairman Dave King
Charles Green approached the Club prior to his arrest and demanded that we pay his legal costs in respect of his co-operation with Police Scotland in its criminal investigation into his time as an officer of the Club.
I advised him that we would not do so. He was subsequently arrested and has now approached the Court to compel the Club to pay the legal costs of his defence to the criminal charges. This application will be strongly resisted.
neepheid 24th September 2015 at 4:02 pm #
The Scotman’s article with the denial has mysteriously disappeared from the interweb
Following my earlier post, this is from the Record last night-
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-deny-charles-green-contacted-6501960
“Rangers deny Charles Green has contacted them in a bid to have the club pay his ongoing legal fees ”
I wonder whether anyone in the SMSM will raise any questions regarding the apparent discrepancy here? Perhaps Sports Journalist of the Year Mr Keith “Radar” Jackson could enlighten us?
neepheid 24th September 2015 at 4:12 pm #
Don’t be daft, “we have always been at war with Eastasia”
DCK makes no assertion that CG’s request/demand is without merit.
Interesting. 💡
Havn’t got a copy of the IPO prospectus to hand, though this looks legit, but is it enforceable?
scapaflow 24th September 2015 at 4:08 pm #
neepheid 24th September 2015 at 4:02 pm #
The Scotman’s article with the denial has mysteriously disappeared from the interweb
___________________
So, either someone at the Scotsman made it all up, or he/she was misled by a RIFC/TRFC spokesperson. If the former, then surely there should be a retraction by the newspaper. If the latter, then surely there’s an even bigger story there than the original denial.
Why is it that Scottish newspapers continually shy away from the real stories whenever it might be bad news/an indication of dishonesty etc. for an Ibrox club?
In addition, why does TRFC’s statements, and those of King, always stop short of covering all the bases. That King statement doesn’t say whether or not Green’s contract contains anything relating to legal costs. If it doesn’t, he would be on solid ground to totally debunk Green’s claim, so why not state it’s not there and end the speculation now?
An alleged Charles Green contract (IIRC from CF)
Check item 37
scapaflow 24th September 2015 at 4:30 pm #
Attachment ipo
Havn’t got a copy of the IPO prospectus to hand, though this looks legit, but is it enforceable?
____________________________
Pretty good spot, Scapa. Assuming this covers what Green claims is in his contract, it would appear that the club/company is liable for his defence costs, but only if he is found not guilty of any charges. Still not good news for TRFC, as it will still create a contingent liability they could well do without (perhaps fatal) and be even more encouragement to Green to hold nothing back in his defence. It would appear to also answer the question of whether or not Ahmad has a similar claim.
scapaflow24th September 2015 at 3:38 pm
Indeed. It’s not straightforward stuff.
The way I have thought about it in the past is that the company, being a person, is one of the people who has commited the crime so has to feature on the indictment.
Take VAT fraud as an example, as I think it is a simple one. If it is the company which is registered for VAT and a fraud is commited then that fraud has been commited by the registered person, the company. However as it is the actions of say it’s directors which actually make up the ingredients of the fraud then they too are culpable. So the indictment would include Company A, along with person B and person C.
I think I have wandered a bit far off topic. Apologies to the blog.
easyJambo 24th September 2015 at 4:44 pm #
Very interesting!
So, King admits Green has contacted the club, presumably to ask if D&O insurance cover is still in place, or have the premiums stopped? kind of query.
If cover still in place, why the need to go to court? If not in place, could there be a claim for negligence on top of the claim for legal costs?
Again, another good spot, EJ.
easyJambo24th September 2015 at 4:44 pm#
Attachment 2012-12-07-Charles-Green-Contract.pdf
An alleged Charles Green contract (IIRC from CF)
Check item 37
==========
Nice one ej.
Assuming that the document is legit…shirley this gives a ‘proper’ journalist an opportunity to at least ask a few probing questions of DK / TRFC / Level42 ?
Won’t hold my breath though.
Looks like there could be enough vagueness to allow Green to take this further ?
More confusion, as per the normal MO at Ibrox.
Allyjambo 24th September 2015 at 4:47 pm #
scapaflow 24th September 2015 at 4:30 pm #
————————
Copy of the IPO Prospectus attached
Wonder if this story would have got such laid-back coverage if it had been derby match up here ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34347108
Homunculus 24th September 2015 at 4:56 pm #
no argument from me, made that point earlier. Agree we have wandered doon an interesting byway, BP will be chastising us shortly
Back to laughing ta the pickle the press have got themselves into
EJ
Thanks, that’s my after dinner indigestion reading
Homunculus 24th September 2015 at 1:06 pm #
stevo 24th September 2015 at 2:31 pm #
Absolutely
easyJambo 24th September 2015 at 4:44 pm #
Check the witness signature.
Re Charlie;s contract, typo in section 14 -accommodation – would make it suspect for me (as far as I read, but if I can see it then surely the proof-reader could .
http://t.co/F9oIkQQ5zy
An English case (Coulson) regarding payment of a director’s legal fees.
“News Group ordered to pay Coulson’s legal costs – implications of the judgment”
neepheid 24th September 2015 at 5:36 pm #
Cheers Neepheid, looks like I am wrong, but, would still argue law needs to be changed
woodstein 24th September 2015 at 5:16 pm #
Homunculus 24th September 2015 at 1:06 pm #
stevo 24th September 2015 at 2:31 pm #
Absolutely
easyJambo 24th September 2015 at 4:44 pm #
Check the witness signature.
=====================
I noticed that but I didn’t wish to comment on the whys and wherefores of any evidence, or sources, re the forthcoming court cases.
The Cat NR1 24th September 2015 at 1:18 am
If we’re looking at lyrics of The Who songs, I would suggest that “Won’t Get Fooled Again” may be more appropriate than “Who Are You” when it comes to the machinations of the Ibrox franchise
You could come up with a multitude of song titles that would so fit what’s go on Govan way.
Think the “relevant” paragraph wrt Greens action v TRFC is on page 100 of IPO.
Hope this helps.
easyJambo 24th September 2015 at 5:55 pm #
Same here.
Torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)
http://www.whatsthescore.com/football/scotland/scotland-irn-bru-1-division/rangers-raith-rovers-m1991065.html
I hope that this is not another case of a club from ibrox not ‘registering’ their players properly !?
For those who subscribe to the Shareprophets site, there is a suggestion that Worthington and Law Financial will be subject to a first strike-off notice, within the next few days, for failing to submit accounts.
http://www.shareprophets.com/views/15265/worthington-to-face-first-strike-off-notice-in-5-days-reader-post-of-the-day
I’d expect that some party will object to a strike-off should it come to pass.
With the talk of money running short ………….. again down Govan way I’ve been thinking; last year “The Rangers” reached the semi of the League Cup where they played a sell out game and pulled the gate with the other well attended semi. They also shared the gate of a home tie with St. Johnstone. Both games were shown live on BBC.
With crowds up this year then they will have received more gate money from any future tie if it had been at home. There was also the guaranteed revenue from the BBC as they are constantly camped there during any cup tie.
How much has this dented the coffers?
As a ballpark figure I think probably north of £250K if they had got another home tie or £175K if they had been drawn away.
In the grand scheme of things it will probably make no difference to the final outcome. It would possibly delay the inevitable by a week or two.
If you believe everything you read then clauses trigger bigger payments off shore when the crowds go over a certain figure so does that make such a big difference to cash flow?
Fans may now be buying more merchandise yet a larger percentage is going to Sports Direct as they now have 75% of the retail.
What I’m really saying is that regardless of how many people go in through the turnstiles or how much merchandise is sold the money doesn’t seem to be going to the club/company. It is still haemorrhaging money and seems to be beset by more issues on an almost weekly basis.
I cannot imagine intelligent business people putting money into this enterprise with encumbered assets, no one seems to know who or what owns anything attached to it, legal battles and court cases abound and the business itself is still losing money hand over fist.
The Daily Record web page tonight surely surpasses previous tales with this lead story comment when discussing Charlie’s legal costs claim……
“The club went into administration and subsequent forced liquidation by HMRC over a “phantom” £80million tax bill, The club were later cleared of having ever owed the taxman.”
Really!!! No unpaid WTC liabilities, no unpaid VAT and NIC, notwithstanding the cases where the courts said there was definite guilt?
Seems also like there is no FTT tribunal appeal or , if there is, Keith McLeod is unaware of it or wishing it weren’t so.
Tax claims are “phantom”.
Then we wonder why there are so many deluded Bears
As was indicated today in a bid to steal my thunder, we have managed at last to obtain premises. The ample sized office is in a row of Victorian Townhouses in The Charing Cross area of Glasgow.
BP will, as we have said before, be manning the offices from the middle of next week – and we can begin to roll out our content programme.
It has been a bit dispiriting that after the amazing effort everyone put in to raise funds – largely to pay for premises – we couldn’t spend any of it. 🙂
Perhaps a wee office-warming will be on the cards, but right now we have Perth on the horizon and lots of other stuff to do.
i have seen some claims that Chicco has been charged with launching a fraudulent IPO. I have no idea if this is the case, but it surely follows that it will be the case if any impropriety is proven re the asset sale.
Who would the shareholders approach for redress if this is the case?…Is it buyer beware?
What chance of getting a listing, if it transpires that one market has already been bumped?
Does the fat lady do requests?
One for our legal eagles. In terms of a defendant receiving a fair trial, do the Prosecution Service monitor newspaper reporting regarding upcoming cases or must there be a complaint? In the same context as a fair trial for the defendant, I’m guessing the Crown’s case receives the same protection.
In my view the penny is now dropping with many that the potential consequences for the present Rangers over this court case could be quite horrendous. Notwithstanding what may happen to the assets, there is now the possibility of crippling legal bills as well. All of this would leave the football operations seriously hamstrung.
I will say no more in case the mods descend on me from a great height!
Trisidium 25th September 2015 at 12:47 am #
As was indicated today in a bid to steal my thunder, we have managed at last to obtain premises. The ample sized office is in a row of Victorian Townhouses in The Charing Cross area of Glasgow.
=======================
Forgive me this observation Tris, but premises like that have a very SFA feel to them 🙂
Trisidium 25th September 2015 at 12:47 am #
‘… we have managed at last to obtain premises. The ample sized office is in a row of Victorian Townhouses in The Charing Cross area of Glasgow.’
__________
Congratulations, Trisidium. Are you getting any help with your legal expenses? 😆
And there’s the rub JS. category A businessmen won’t touch it for all the reasons you state. Category B businessmen will look at legal methods to bypass the ownership issues if it leaves them with a profitable herd for them to milk. Category C businessmen (usually referred to as shysters) can look past, indeed know inside out the legalista required to bypass the ownership issues and can live with a loss maker (avoids those pesky tax charges for a start) if they still get their cream off the top.
This herd is on its last legs and the cream content is log gone.
That just leaves the category D guys, usually recognised by their black wings, bald heads and ability to fly in circles. Suffice it to say that feeding and reinvigorating the herd to enjoy a more ample meal at some undefined point in the future is rarely their modus operandi.
The Daily Record has really excelled itself this morning on the history rewrite project they embarked on 3 years ago.
The “club” were, of course, put into administration for failing to pay over to HMRC several months PAYE tax and VAT. The “Big Tax Case” is still in the appeals process, so the “club” haven’t been cleared of anything yet, and even if they eventually win on all outstanding appeal points, there will still be over £20m owed to HMRC. That sum is not in dispute.
This is just a series of blatant lies from the Record, clearly aimed at feeding the victim mentality among the Ibrox fans, most of whom will (understandably enough) take this garbage at face value, and as concrete evidence of how badly they have been treated.
I am writing today to the editor of this disgraceful rag, demanding that a correction be published. I’ll be astonished if I get a response, but I’ll post it here if I do.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/old-rangers-board-signed-deal-6510560
Unable to copy over, but just seen a front page attempt at satire by the DR on twitter. Jackson very smug about it.
It’s a pic of Green’s board with dialogue to the effect of asking him if he’d like legal cover in case he is charged with defrauding ‘Rangers’.
Typical inaccuracy, or out and out lie, from the comic! I pointed out that it was the creditors of ‘Rangers’ who were defrauded (if indeed fraud has taken place) to the benefit of TRFC.
Of course, we again see the problem for a newspaper that supports a lie! If Sevco (the vehicle for any fraud) is Rangers FC, then surely RFC defrauded RFC ( if it was indeed Rangers – as the DR claims – who were defrauded)?
Besides, if a club has no liabilities, no assets, and no corporeal or legal standing, how can it possibly be defrauded?
Keith (Jackson), or any other hack, please try to answer that!