Spot the difference?

Bybroganrogantrevinoandhogan

Spot the difference?

Good Afternoon.

Announcing outstanding financial successes for Rangers PLC the then Chairman of the club opened his Chairman’s report in the annual financial statements with the following words:

“Last summer I explained that the Club, after many years of significant investment in our playing squad
and more recently in our state of the art facility at Murray Park, had embarked on a three year business
plan to stabilise and improve the Club’s finances. The plan also recognised the need to react to the
challenging economic conditions facing football clubs around the world.

Following a trend over a number of years of increasing year on year losses, I am pleased to report that
in the first year of this plan we have made important progress by reversing this trend. Our trading loss
for last year of £11.2m reflects a £7.9m improvement versus the £19.1m loss for the previous year and
although it will take more time to completely reach our goals, this is a key milestone. We also intend to
make significant further progress by the end of the current financial year. This improvement is the
consequence of having a solid strategy and the commitment and energy to implement the changes it requires”

Later on in the same statement the chairman would add:

“Another key part of our plan is associated with the Rangers brand and our Retail Division goes from strength to strength. Our financial results this year have been significantly enhanced by an outstanding performance in merchandising Rangers products, in particular replica kit, which makes our Retail Division one of the most successful in Europe.”

In the same set of financial reports, the CEO would report:

“To further strengthen Rangers hospitality portfolio, a new dedicated sponsor’s lounge was unveiled this season. The Carling Lounge is a first for the Club and was developed in conjunction with our new sponsor, Carling. ”

and

“Our innovative events programme continues to grow and this year saw a record number of official events including the highly successful annual Hall of Fame Awards Ceremony, Player of the Year and 50 Championships Gala Dinner, all of which catered for up to 1000 guests.

At Rangers, we continually develop our portfolio of products and as a key area of income for the Club, we evaluate the market for new revenue opportunities on an ongoing basis in order to exceed our existing and potential customer expectations and needs.

Demand for season tickets reached an all time high last season with a record 42,508 season ticket holders in comparison with the previous season`s figure of 40,320. Over 36,000 of these season ticket holders renewed for this season – a record number.

For the new season, we are delighted to welcome brewing giant, Carling on board as our Official Club sponsor. Carling is one of the UK’s leading consumer brands with a proven track record in football sponsorship.
The Club also continues to work with a number of multinational blue chip brands such as National Car Rental, Sony Playstation 2, Bank of Scotland and Coca-Cola. This year, we will also experience the evolution of the Honda deal via Hyndland Honda and welcome the mobile communications giant T-Mobile to our ranks.”.

The year was 2003 and in the previous 24 months Rangers Football Club, owned and operated as a private fiefdom by Sir David Murray, had made operational losses of some £30 million.

Yes – 30 MILLION POUNDS.

Of course the chairman’s report for 2003 was written by John F Mclelland CBE and the CEO was one Martin Bain Esq.

As Mr Mclelland clearly stated, by 2003 the club already had a trend of increasing year on year losses covering a number of years and was losing annual sums which stretched into millions, if not tens of millions, of pounds.

However, the acquisition of Rangers Football Club was absolutely vital to David Murray’s personal business growth, and his complete control of the club as his own private business key was more important than any other business decision he had made before buying Rangers or since.

When he persuaded Gavin Masterton to finance 100% of the purchase price of the club, Murray had his finest business moment.

By getting control of Rangers, Murray was able to offer entertainment, hospitality, seeming privilege and bestow favour on others in a way that was hitherto undreamed of, and he bestowed that largesse on any number of “existing and potential clients” and contacts – be they the clients and contacts related to Rangers Football Club or the existing and potential clients of David Murray, his businesses, his banks, or anyone in any field that he chose to court for the purposes of potential business.

His business.

It wasn’t only journalists who benefited from the succulent lamb treatment.

Accountants,lawyers, surveyors, broadcasters, football officials, people in industry and construction, utilities, financiers and other areas of business were all invited inside the sacred House of Murray and given access to the great man of business “and owner of Rangers” while attending the “record number of official (hospitality) events”.

Twelve months on from when John McLelland made those statements in the 2003 accounts, David Murray was back in the chair at Ibrox and he presented the 2004 financials.

In the intervening 12 months Rangers had gained an additional £10 million from Champions League income and had received £8.6 million in transfer fees from the sale of Messrs Ferguson, Amoruso and McCann. Not only that, the Rangers board had managed to reduce the club’s wage bill by £5 million. Taking all three figures together comes to some £23.6 million in extra income or savings.

Yet, the accounts for 2004 showed that the club made an operational loss of almost £6 million and overall debt had risen by an additional £7 million to £97.4 million.

However, the 2004 accounts were also interesting for another reason.

Rangers PLC had introduced payments “to employees trusts” into their accounts for the first time in 2001 and in that year they had paid £1million into those trusts. Just three years later, the trust payments recorded in the accounts had risen to £7.3 million per annum — or to put it another way to 25% of the annual wage bill though no one in Scottish Football asked any questions about that!

By the following year, the chairman announced that the 2004 operational loss had in fact been £10.4million but that the good news was that the 2005 operational loss was only £7.8 million. However Rangers were able to post a profit before taxation if they included the money obtained from transfers (£8.4 million) and the inclusion of an extraordinary profit of £14,999,999 made on buying back the shares of a subsidiary company for £1 which they had previously sold for £15 million.

All of which added up to a whopping great profit of ……… £12.4 million!

I will leave you to do the maths on 2005.

Oh and of course these accounts included the detail that 3000 Rangers fans had joined David Murray in participating in the November ’94 share issue where the club managed to raise £51,430,995 in fresh capital most of which was provided by Mr Murray… sorry I mean MIH ….. sorry that should read Bank of Scotland …… or their shareholders……. or should that be the public purse?

The notable items in the 2006 accounts included the announcement of a ten year deal with JJB Sports to take over the merchandising operation of the club and increased revenue from an extended run in the Champion’s League. However, the profit before tax was declared at only£0.1 million in comparison to the £12.4 million of the year before but then again that £12.4 million had included player sales of £8.4 million and the £15 million sweety bonus from  the repurchase of ones own former subsidiary shares for £1.

Jumping to 2008 Rangers saw a record year in terms of turnover which had risen to £64.5 million which enabled the company to record a profit on ordinary activities before taxation of  £6.57 million although it should be pointed out that wages and bonuses were up at 77% of turnover and that a big factor in the Rangers income stream was corporate hospitality and the top line of income was shown as “gate receipts and hospitality”.

However, 2009 saw a calamitous set of figures. Whilst Alastair Johnston tried to put a brave chairman’s face on it, the year saw an operating loss of £17.325 million which was softened only by player disposals leading to a loss before taxation of a mere £14.085 million.

Fortunately Sir David did not have to report these figures as he chose to stand down as chairman in August and so Johnston stepped in and announced that he was deeply honoured to do so.

In 2010, the income stream jumped from £39.7 million to over £56 million with the result that the club showed a profit before taxation of £4.209 million.

However, by that time the corporate hospitality ticket that was Rangers Football Club was done for as a result of matters that had nothing to do with events on the football field in the main.

First, the emergence of the Fergus McCann run Celtic had brought a real business and sporting challenge. This was something that Murray had not previously faced in the football business.

Second,the Bank of Scotland had gone bust and Lloyds could not and would not allow Murray to continually borrow vast sums of money on the basis of revalued assets and outrageous hospitality.

Third, the UEFA fair play rules came into being and demanded that clubs at least act on a semblance of proper corporate governance and fiscal propriety.

Lastly,Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tightened up the law on the use of EBT’s which meant that Rangers could no longer afford to buy in the players that brought almost guaranteed success against domestic opposition.

On average, since 2002 Rangers PLC had lost between £7 million – £8 million per year – or roughly £650,000 per month if you like – yet for the better part of a decade David Murray had been able to persuade the Bank of Scotland that this was a business that was worthy of ever greater financial support or that he himself and his MIH business was of such value that the Banks should support him in supporting the Ibrox club whilst operating in this fashion.

Of course, had Murray’s Rangers paid tax on all player remunerations then the losses would have been far larger.

Meanwhile, all the other clubs in Scottish football who banked with the Bank of Scotland faced funding cuts and demands for repayment with the bank publicly proclaiming that it was overexposed to the football market in Scotland.

But no one asked any questions about why the bank should act one way with Murray’s club but another way with all others. No one in football, no one in the media and no one from the world of business.

Looking back,it is hard to imagine a business which has been run on such a consistent loss making basis being allowed to continue by either its owners or by its bankers. However, a successful and funded Rangers was so important to the Murray group that David Murray was clearly willing to lose millions year after year to keep the Gala dinners and corporate hospitality going.

Rangers were Murray’s big PR vehicle and the club was essentially used by him to open the doors which would allow him to make more money elsewhere on a personal basis and if it meant Rangers cutting every corner and accumulating massive losses, unsustainable losses, then so be it.

Today, the new regime at Ibrox run the current business in a way which clocks up the same colossal annual losses whilst the club competes outwith Scotland’s top division. Each day we hear that the wage bill is unsustainable, that the playing staff are overpaid, that the stadium needs massive investment and that the fans are opposed to the stadium itself being mortgaged and the club being in hawk to lenders.

Yet, in the Murray era the Stadium was revalued time and time again and its revaluation was used as the justification for ever greater borrowing on the Rangers accounts. The playing staff were massively overpaid and financially assisted by the EBT’s and most years the Chairman’s annual statement announced huge losses despite regular claims of record season ticket sales, record hospitality income, European income, shirt sponsorship and the outsourcing of all merchandising to JJB sports instead of Sports Direct.

The comparison between the old business and the current one is clear for all to see.

It should be noted, that since the days of Murray, no major banking institution has agreed to provide the Ibrox business with any banking facilities. Not under Whyte, not under Green, not under anyone.

Yet few ask why that should be.

The destruction of the old Rangers business led those in charge of Scottish football to announce that Armageddon was on the horizon if it had not actually arrived, yet today virtually all Scottish clubs are in a better financial and business state than back in the bad old days of the Bank of Scotland financed SPL. Some have succumbed to insolvency, and others have simply cut their cloth, changed their structure, sought, and in some cases attracted, new owners and moved on in terms of business.

In general, Scottish Football has cleaned house at club level.

Now, David Murray has “cleaned house” in that MIH has bitten the dust and walked down insolvency road.

What is interesting is that the Murray brand still has that capacity to get out a good PR message when it needs to. Despite the MIH pension fund being short of money for some inexplicable reason, last week it was announced that the family controlled Murray Estates had approached those in charge of MIH and had agreed to buy some key MIH assets for something in the region of £13.9 million.

The assets concerned are land banks which at some point will be zoned for planning and which will undoubtedly bring the Murray family considerable profit in the future, with some of those assets already looking as if they will produce a return sooner rather than later.

However, what is not commented upon in the mainstream press is the fact that Murray Estates had the ability to pay £13.9 Million for anything at all and that having that amount of money to spend the Murray camp has chosen not to buy any football club down Govan way.

Perhaps, it has been realised that a football club which loses millions of pounds each year is not such a shrewd investment and that the Murray family money would be better spent elsewhere?

Perhaps, it has been realised that the culture of wining, dining, partying and entertaining to the most lavish and extravagant extent will not result in the banks opening their vaults any more?

Perhaps, it has been realised that the Rangers brand has been so badly damaged over the years that it is no longer the key to the golden door in terms of business, finance and banking and that running a football club in 2015 involves a discipline and a set of skills that David Murray and his team do not have experience of?

What is clear, is that the Murray years at Ibrox were not good for the average Rangers fan in the long term and that when you have a football club – any football club – being run for the private benefit of one rich individual, or group of individuals, then the feelings and passions of the ordinary fan will as often as not be forgotten when that individual or his group choose to move on once they have decided that they no longer wish to play with their toy football club.

David Murray did not make money directly out of Rangers Football Club. He used it as a key to open other doors for him and to get him a seat at other tables and into a different type of “club” altogether. He did not run the club in a day to day fashion that was designed to bring stability and prolonged financial, or playing, success to the club. its investors and its fans. He did not preside over Ibrox during a period of sustained financial gain.

Mike Ashley will not subsidise 2015 version of Rangers to anything like the same extent that the Bank of Scotland did in the 90’s and naughties.

However, Ashley, like Murray, will use his control of the Rangers brand to open doors for him elsewhere in the sports retail market, and he will use the Rangers contract with Sports Direct to make a handsome profit. He will also control all the advertising revenue just as he does at Newcastle. In short, Mr Ashley is only interested in The Rangers with a view to using it as a stepping stone to achieve other things elsewhere.

However, don’t take my word for any of this, take the opinion of someone who knows.

Mr Dave King is quoted today as saying the following about the current board of Directors who are in charge of the current Ibrox holding company.

“History will judge this board as one of the worst the club has ever had. There is not one individual who puts the club above personal interest.”

That is an interesting observation from a man who became a non executive director of the old Rangers holding company in 2000 and who had a front row pew for every set of accounts and all the financial statements referred to above.

Whether or not Mr King is a glib and shameless liar is a matter of South African judicial opinion. Whether or not he can spot someone who puts their own self interest ahead of the interests of Rangers Football Club and the supporters of the club is a matter that should be discussed over some fine wine, some succulent lamb and whatever postprandial entertainment you care to imagine.

I wonder if he has ever read the accounts of Rangers PLC and compared them to the corresponding accounts of MIH for the same period?

 

About the author

broganrogantrevinoandhogan author

Boot wearing football, sport & total nonsense fan-- Gourmet, Bon Viveur and eedgit! - Oh and I write a bit occasionally!

4,992 Comments so far

GoosyGoosyPosted on10:32 am - Feb 16, 2015


scarecrow666 says:
February 16, 2015 at 10:00 am
“Also wouldn’t it all be very interesting if this was a course of action considered by Hector. Keep claiming you are the original I say just in case it is an option for Hector.”
My memory could be wrong but did hector not say something along the lines of “rangers could continue playing out out of ibrox” when CG was buying the assets? So I don’t think hector would do much.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Is this saying the same thing?

A statement from the tax authority read: “A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years.

“A CVA would restrict the scope of such action.

“Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.

“So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route.

“Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox.

“It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA.

“Rangers can make a fresh start.”

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:43 am - Feb 16, 2015


neepheid says: February 16, 2015 at 9:32 am

Danish Pastry says: February 16, 2015 at 9:20 am
===========================
I’m pretty certain that the STV figures aren’t 100% accurate.
Artemis formerly held 8,109,223 shares (9.95%) up to 2nd Jan., (the same number as on the RIFC website). There was a share trade for exactly that amount on that date (part of the King purchase). Today’s announcement is the first official notification that Artemis’ holding had changed. I don’t know where Grant Russell got the residual 0.3% holding from. STV’s 4M holding for Blue Pitch is also probably out of date, as even the RIFC website has them holding 4,426,485 shares since the September share offer.

However, looking at the STV figures, if you take all the “Nominee” and “Securities” holdings together with Blue Pitch and Margarita, then you get 14.68M which is getting close to the 16M figure which represents Sandy Easdale’s proxy holding.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:02 am - Feb 16, 2015


GoosyGoosy says:
February 16, 2015 at 10:32 am

“The liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.

“So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route.

“Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox.

“It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA.

“Rangers can make a fresh start.”

————————————————-
The thing about that statement that has always intrigued me is that the CVA purchase price was higher than the administration price and yet the CVA route usually carries with it the strong possibility of financial liabilities wrt debts and contract performance.

I would always, in a common-sense way, have believed that you would have to pay more for an unencumbered business than one saddled with historical debts and contracts.

Obviously the 5-Way agreement provided for the payment of ‘football debts’ on the blackmail basis of providing the all-important football membership/licence without which the whole Rangers operation wasn’t worth a busted flush.

I have no doubt that discussions between D&P and the Scottish Footballing Authorities took place from the day the club went formally into administration, if not before, and continued.

Indeed the deal might have been concluded even before Green performed the Sevco 5088/Sevco Scotland switcheroo. Perhaps we have concentrated too much on Green when the roots go much further back.

It might also be the reason why successive Blue Knights came riding to the rescue for their horses to founder at the gates of Ibrox. It looked inept at the time and still does. Perhaps this time round the SFA and surviving remnants/relics of the SPL and SFL have to make it Buggins’ Turn.

It may also explain the curious amomaly that has always bugged me in the side letter which accompanied the 5-Way Agreement – both of which were meant to remain secret for all time – whereby Green formally agreed not to take legal action against Scottish Football officials at Hampden for their conduct.

What was that all about and will we ever be told? It holds the key IMO to how mystery shareholders came to control, and still do, a major Scottish Football Club. And yet it would appear that no other club thinks the matter important enough to raise and seek answers to.

Or perhaps they have and don’t think they require to provide any answers to their fans and just hope the SPL/SPFL sleight of hand will bury the matter forever.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:09 am - Feb 16, 2015


easyJambo says:
February 16, 2015 at 10:43 am

If you take all the “Nominee” and “Securities” holdings together with Blue Pitch and Margarita, then you get 14.68M which is getting close to the 16M figure which represents Sandy Easdale’s proxy holding.
———————————————————–
Have you included the Easdale Camp’s personal shareholding into your figures? That might account for the difference but I can’t remember the amount off the top of my head.

And have you had any further thoughts on all the small nominee shareholdings which have suddenly appeared?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:45 am - Feb 16, 2015


Smugas says:
February 16, 2015 at 9:55 am

The attraction to shareholders of King carrying the fans with him shouldn’t be dismissed. I just feel his direct involvement will derail the thing, yet again, from day one, but is that better than him sniping from the sidelines?

I have always been open to the possibility that King provides the shock & awe frontal assault on the Ashley position.

I doubt if it matters whether it succeeds or not because it’s real intention is to provide a feint for the T3B negotiators to do a civilised business deal with Ashley.

I have always believed that DK is a RRM and there is no doubt that he is skilled in making money and like most people of his genre in Britain it would appear he tries to pay as little tax as possible, if any, on his or his companies’ income.

He has paid a price for his gamble in South Africa and possibly only King can conclude whether that was a good deal or not although I would be very surprised if he wasn’t pleasantly surprised with the eventual outcome.

However he has already lost £20 million in Rangers although I have no knowledge of where that money came from or how it was raised but no matter because I doubt if he is prepared to gamble any substantial sums of personal money in the club in future.

But, as I say, he is a Rangers Supporter and no matter what different Bear factions might think of him he carries an enormous respect from many and if his name is attached to a new financial beginning at Ibrox I think he could sell 35,000 to 40,000 STs for next season.

That is an important revenue stream and afaik it isn’t tied up yet by MA. But there is obviously a link between STs sold and retail sales and even pies wolfed.

So it’s in Ashley’s interests IMO to do a deal with T3B but the fans need their pound of flesh and that has to be The Easdales IMO and some kind of curbing of the mystery overseas investors and their 26% blocking shareholding probably through dilution or buying them out and by ensuring they have no boardroom influence.

And as to King – he might know full well he isn’t going to go on the Rangers Board just yet but he will be proclaimed by T3B as the man who saved Rangers and be made Life President. You get all the kudos without spending all of the Family Trust Fund in a risky adventure.

Indeed this could all be achieved without the egm taking place and may well be. I think of Chamberlain with his piece of paper declaring: ‘Peace in Our Time’.

For Rangers what follows is the tricky bit because serious austerity will follow and T3B will back Ashley in this. However the message to the fans will be coming from RRM and tbh I think Bears are in an slmost punch-drunk frame of mind whereby any cessation of the bitter civil war they have been engaged in will be welcomed as long as it isn’t presented as unconditional surrender although, in reality, it might well be that.

Any dissenting fan groups will be ruthlessly marginalised as standing in the way of the journey back to the top. Will it succeed? I haven’t a clue but it will be interesting watching a new phase in the Journey.

And you’re right Smugas: I think everyone anywhere near the top table including MA fully understand the need to keep DK in the gazebo pissin’ out rather than on the outside with his water cannons.

Oh I should have said that a couple of years down the line DK will get his coveted Rangers Directorship when any legal objections have passed and I am sure the SFA will laud his contribution to moving Rangers forward to its Rightful Place and confirm that he is a ‘fit and proper’ person to be Life President and in time a NED – not of the Castlemilk variety of course 😆

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:50 am - Feb 16, 2015


ecobhoy says: February 16, 2015 at 11:09 am
=======================
The 14.68M above equates to 18.07% compared the SE Proxy of 19.73%.

The SE and JE individual holdings of 6.47% and 0.7% are over and above the proxies above.

After checking Fitel, I had a look at a few other “nominee” companies but couldn’t find any direct links to known names.

I’m pretty sure that the small amounts held by the Nominee companies do represent the bulk of the Easdale proxy.

Today’s announcement to AIM, re Artemis and Miton, may have resulted from them returning their proxy cards stating that they were not entitled to vote. It begs the question of how accurate the Capita register is given the proximity of the EGM (still venue-less).

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on11:55 am - Feb 16, 2015


Ref yesterday’s Hamilton v Aberdeen game, one thing that often amuses/bemuses me, is the situation when a valid goal is ruled out,due to an official’s mistake.

The assumption that the final result would be enhanced by the inclusion of the ruled out score.

I don’t believe that to be the case as, if the goal had been allowed, the game would restart from the centre spot, instead of a free kick from the six yard box.

Therefore, every subsequent play would be altered, meaning that the flow of the game changes.

That’s what makes it such a great game, the randomness of the play.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:58 am - Feb 16, 2015


briggsbhoy says:
February 16, 2015 at 8:35 am

OC/NC

What if they argued that hard that they were the same club and it became fact.
————————————————–
An interesting scenario but I wonder how the recent withdrawal of an official press release from Rangers – supposedly because BDO fired a warning shot across their bows, fits in.

If Hector was quietly sitting back simply observing and collating until they felt yhey had enough evidence why would BDO upset that applecart.

Or I suppose it might be because BDO has a greater legal duty to Rangers’ creditors in a live liquidation rather than in some possible future claw-back for those creditors via HMRC acting.

Of course the issue hinges on the new, dare I say, Phoenix Company being financially successful so Hector IMO might require the patience of an elephant 🙄

View Comment

McCaig`s TowerPosted on12:30 pm - Feb 16, 2015


ecobhoy says:

February 16, 2015 at 11:09 am

And have you had any further thoughts on all the small nominee shareholdings which have suddenly appeared?

I assume that STV dug a bit deeper – previously they had a much larger number of unattributed shares.

I am no expert, but I imagine that all these nominee holdings include a number of fans’ shareholdings as well as a proportion (no idea what amount) of “Institutional Investors”.

On that point, I suspect that if an ordinary fan goes to a broker with an order to buy shares in RIFC plc then that shareholding would normally be held by a nominee company, and thus the fan would not (without jumping through a few hoops) normally be entitled to attend or vote at an AGM. Of course, it may be easy enough to attend as a “guest” in practice.

Has there been any chatter about this on t’internet?

View Comment

scottcPosted on12:37 pm - Feb 16, 2015


ecobhoy says:
February 16, 2015 at 11:02 am

I would always, in a common-sense way, have believed that you would have to pay more for an unencumbered business than one saddled with historical debts and contracts.

True, but the £8.5m for the CVA was to be structured as a loan to the company. The £5.5m was meant to be a straight out purchase.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:49 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Aw,hey,essexbeancounter! I’ve been called a lot of things in my time, but ‘venerable’?
I have openly referred to the fact that I do sometimes take what used to be occasionally described as a ‘ a good Bede’, but that’s as near to being ‘Venerable ‘ as I come. 😀

View Comment

The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty?Posted on12:54 pm - Feb 16, 2015


ThomTheThim says:
February 16, 2015 at 11:55 am

Ref yesterday’s Hamilton v Aberdeen game, one thing that often amuses/bemuses me, is the situation when a valid goal is ruled out,due to an official’s mistake.

The assumption that the final result would be enhanced by the inclusion of the ruled out score.

I don’t believe that to be the case as, if the goal had been allowed, the game would restart from the centre spot, instead of a free kick from the six yard box.

Therefore, every subsequent play would be altered, meaning that the flow of the game changes.

That’s what makes it such a great game, the randomness of the play.

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

That’s amused/bemused me for years too, Thom, and I couldn’t agree more.

Not only in the scenario you describe, but also in any “wrong-call” incident which leads to folk authoritatively opining on what the outcome would have been if the play had/hadn’t been stopped/allowed to continue.

The subsequent alteration in play which you described is spot-on IMO.

I’ve also always been amused/bemused by the frantic efforts of attackers attempting to retrieve the ball from the net following a goal (or worse, the defenders’ equally determined attempts to stop them, thereby risking a caution ) and rushing upfield to place it, purposefully, on the centre spot.

It apparently has never occurred to anyone that, nomatter how quickly the attacking team return the ball to the centre spot, the defending team control the speed of the restart.

Adrenaline-fuelled behaviour, no doubt, but bizarre nevertheless.

View Comment

TorquemadaPosted on12:55 pm - Feb 16, 2015


peterjung says:
February 15, 2015 at 11:47 am
——————–

Well said. The OC/NC debate, IMO, is more than mere musing on an ultimately unimportant distinction of interest only to football fans concerned with one-upmanship. It is the bedrock of the victimisation myth which has led to the increased bitterness, hatred and violence being exhibited daily by Sevco fans towards their present board, former board members and the fans of other clubs as well as the clubs themselves. It has poisoned the well.

Had the authorities confronted the issue in a legal manner rather than a commercial one, Rangers fans would have been obliged to confront their club’s culpability in its demise rather than pretend that it was some nebulous holding company that was responsible. This they have refused to do and they have been supported by the unnamed but well-known “tentacles” running deep in Scottish society, as remarked by Jim Spence on Twitter.

There is nothing idle about this debate and those who say it is or that they are above it do the rest of us and Scottish society as a whole a massive disservice.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on12:59 pm - Feb 16, 2015


jockybhoy says:
February 16, 2015 at 9:59 am

Welcome to 21st century “churnalism” – someone writes a story and gets it up online, everyone else needs immediate copy to populate their websites so they regurgitate it, tweaking the language but the “quotes” stay the same (after all they are now in thepublic domain). Just look at the avalanche of stuff that appears on a given subject on the “newsnow” website.

I hear what you say and there may be a lot of truth in it. But a more usual explanation for the quotes remaining the same is that they originate either from a wire agency or a press release.

I actually wonder if the staff resources on online editions are actually sufficient to closely monitor competitor copy especially at night or the weekend.

News Now shows the DR ran the Inter possibly using Murray Park story at approx 6.30pm last night on an ‘it is understood’ basis. There was nothing to back it up, no quotes, and on the face of it looks like a speculation piece because someone remembered the last time Green offered MP to Celtic’s Euro opponents.

The game changed an hour later when the Daily Mail ran a much better version of the story and it even had a quote from Mancini which stated:

Roberto Mancini’s side have asked for Rangers’ help in preparing for the Parkhead clash by hosting a light training session on the morning of the game.

After they warmed up for their visit to Scotland with an impressive 4-1 win at Atalanta on Sunday, the former Manchester City manager confirmed: ‘Yes, training at Rangers is an option. We will decide on Thursday morning.’

And then just after midnight last night the Glasgow Herald came late to the story with that quote again:

Mancini confirmed: “Yes, training at Rangers is an option. We will decide on Thursday morning.”

And at 5.30am this morning yip we had that quote again from the Evening Times.

The BIG question for me is where did the Mancini ‘quote’ come from? I thought since it was apparently made after yesterda’s victory against Atalanta that it was worth hunting for it in Mancini’s official post-match interview at 5.51pm last night.

But the only mention he made of Celtic was: ‘The Europa League clash against Celtic. That’s a very important competition for us’.

I’m sure that the quote can’t be a pure fabrication and it masy well have come from an Italian sports freelance who asked Mancini whether he would be using ‘The World famous Murray Park’ and transmitted his response to an eagerly awaiting Scottish Press.

Indeed perhaps an intrepid Daily Mail journo phoned Mancini on his personal mobie just to chew the fat and ask about Murray Park. Perhaps . . .

I was interested when Mancini described Fredy Guarin as being ‘In imperious form’ and thought: Gawd, what will he be like after treading the hallowed MP astroturf 😎

Still, all joking aside, if I had to take a wild guess I would say the DR probably got a wire feed from the Inter after match report and a journo was instructed to put a kilt on it which led to Murray Park being wheeled-out.

I think the DM may well have added the bells and whistles – or should that be bagpipes – of a quote from the Great Man although tbf that may have come direct from Italy although that, in itself, is no guarantee that Mancini uttered it.

Still it’s all an interesting look at Schottish Churnalism in action and on Thursday night I won’t give a stuff where Inter trained as I take my seat to partake of another glorious European night in Paradise. Win lose or draw these really are magical experiences 😛

View Comment

vivitronPosted on1:31 pm - Feb 16, 2015


ThomTheThim says:
February 16, 2015 at 11:55 am

Ref yesterday’s Hamilton v Aberdeen game, one thing that often amuses/bemuses me, is the situation when a valid goal is ruled out,due to an official’s mistake.

The assumption that the final result would be enhanced by the inclusion of the ruled out score.

In a similar vein….

It has always amused me when a commentator says something like “… the goal was denied by the crossbar”

No … it was off target.

Or “… he was in an offside position when he received the ball”

Offside only exists at the moment the ball is passed.

Any more?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:35 pm - Feb 16, 2015


briggsbhoy says:

February 16, 2015 at 8:35 am

OC/NC

What if they argued that hard that they were the same club and it became fact. Someone I know was at an internal department presentation on tax matters. A member of the audience posed a question ” what if a company went bust owing owing millions in tax. That company reappears with same staff, working from the same premises, wearing the same uniform, with the same customers, in the same business and claim they are the same company should they be liable for outstanding tax of the original company. The response was “I think I can see where you are going with this and if such a situation arose then we likely would review this and monitor the situation over a period of time and would look at any official announcements from the new company where they lay claim to be the same as the old. Evidence would be gathered to support this over a period of time in order to back any claim of unpaid tax and that they were indeed operating as the same company.
A company came to my mind but I also pondered has that organisation ever made any official “we are same company,we never died statement”. I would be ironic if this companies organising body helped put the nail in the coffin of the new company by insisting they were the same. Also wouldn’t it all be very interesting if this was a course of action considered by Hector. Keep claiming you are the original I say just in case it is an option for Hector.
==================
AS it happens I wrote to my MP on 27 Jan 2015 to try and establish just where HMRC stood in relation to the same club claims and justification for them. He in turn has contacted the Chancellor who is responsible for HMRC matters withy my questions.

Dear MP

Can I ask you to put the following questions to the responsible Minister/Executive in HMRC from me as a tax payer of many years in order to get definitive answers.

Much is being made in the Scottish press that The Rangers Football Club currently operating out of Ibrox in the same colours, in front of the same support base as RFC 2012 PLC, currently undergoing liquidation, are in fact the same continuing club. It is front and back page news.

Some of the arguments put forward to explain why what is happening is not “pheonixing” and is indeed legal and above board seem to the untrained observer quite persuasive. So persuasive that it would seem TRFC and RFC PLC 2012 are the same continuous entity and so club and are not even a phoenix company.

The justification for this stance is in the words from the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission where Lord Nimmo Smith and Charles Flint said

“On the 14th of June 2012 a newly incorporated company purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, INCLUDING RANGERS FC”, and, “In legal terms, it (a club) appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold.”

Do HMRC agree with the opinion of the learned gentlemen that a club is an asset that can be purchased to continue exactly as before and if so why are HMRC not pursuing unpaid tax from RFC 2012 PLC as well as TRFC?

If HMRC do not agree with the learned gentleman could they explain why in plain English please?

Separately but related

If “Rangers FC could not have been purchased by TRFC, then are TRFC in breach of any of the insolvency laws regarding pheonixing, because either they are in fact a continuation of the original RFC 2012PLC and are not a phoenix,

or

are not a continuation of RFC 2012PLC but are acting as a business as if they are, which begs the question are HMRC happy that TRFC are breaking no insolvency laws in doing so?

An explanation of what does and does not constitute phoenix behaviour would be appreciated along with where TRFC stand in relation to such.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:47 pm - Feb 16, 2015


McCaig`s Tower says:
February 16, 2015 at 12:30 pm
ecobhoy says:
February 16, 2015 at 11:09 am

I am no expert, but I imagine that all these nominee holdings include a number of fans’ shareholdings as well as a proportion (no idea what amount) of “Institutional Investors”.

On that point, I suspect that if an ordinary fan goes to a broker with an order to buy shares in RIFC plc then that shareholding would normally be held by a nominee company, and thus the fan would not (without jumping through a few hoops) normally be entitled to attend or vote at an AGM. Of course, it may be easy enough to attend as a “guest” in practice.
——————————————————–
I posted a few days ago about the emergence of these small nominee bundles of share which have just appeared for the first time publicly afaik at least in such numbers.

Of course it could be simply a product of the egm having been called and the necessity to update the register in what could be a very tight vote.

So they could well be temporarily held in the nominee accounts until such time as they are registered in the RIFC Plc share register in the name of fan shareholders.

I doubt with such small percentages they are institutional purchases and IMO any institutional purchases at this time could be problematic simply because of the uncertainty surrounding the egm.

However with a tightly restricted egm venue where those attending will presumably need to be allocated a ticket by the Board then perhaps – depending on the basis of allocation – there could be a method in the ‘madness’.

Obviously ‘guests’ can also be allocated seats at an egm but this may well be controversial when capacity is restricted and indeed lead to anger because their presence would probably exclude actual shareholders. Of course they can’t vote and IIRC can’t speak either.

As to internet chatter on share issues I tend to only check with a few posters I know have the knowledge and experience to make sense of it all which is well beyond my capabilities 🙁

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on1:50 pm - Feb 16, 2015


The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty? says:
February 16, 2015 at 12:54 pm

ThomTheThim says:
February 16, 2015 at 11:55 am

Ref yesterday’s Hamilton v Aberdeen game, one thing that often amuses/bemuses me, is the situation when a valid goal is ruled out,due to an official’s mistake.

The assumption that the final result would be enhanced by the inclusion of the ruled out score.

I don’t believe that to be the case as, if the goal had been allowed, the game would restart from the centre spot, instead of a free kick from the six yard box.

Therefore, every subsequent play would be altered, meaning that the flow of the game changes.

That’s what makes it such a great game, the randomness of the play.

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

That’s amused/bemused me for years too, Thom, and I couldn’t agree more.

Not only in the scenario you describe, but also in any “wrong-call” incident which leads to folk authoritatively opining on what the outcome would have been if the play had/hadn’t been stopped/allowed to continue.

The subsequent alteration in play which you described is spot-on IMO.

I’ve also always been amused/bemused by the frantic efforts of attackers attempting to retrieve the ball from the net following a goal (or worse, the defenders’ equally determined attempts to stop them, thereby risking a caution ) and rushing upfield to place it, purposefully, on the centre spot.

It apparently has never occurred to anyone that, nomatter how quickly the attacking team return the ball to the centre spot, the defending team control the speed of the restart.

Adrenaline-fuelled behaviour, no doubt, but bizarre nevertheless.
=================================================
Do you remember the English Championship play-off second leg in 2012-13, when Leicester were given an “honest mistake” penalty in the last minute that would have given them aggregate victory if scored? The penalty wasn’t converted and in the resulting chaos, Watford went straight down the other end and scored themselves to win it.
Extra time, no it’s a Leicester win, no it’s extra time after all, OMG did I just see that? All in less than a minute.
And all from one honest mistake.

I’m still not sure that Accies would have recovered from the 3-0 deficit, but 10 man Man City’s 4-3 win against Spurs from 3-0 down at H-T in the FA Cup about 10 or 11 years ago shows it can be done.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:02 pm - Feb 16, 2015


It would appear Brysonianism is not only alive and well but thriving and spreading with the mantra that sectarian chants isn’t a breach of SPFL Rules.

I am sure our SMSM will be along on the next tram car to ask:’If NOT? Why NOT?’.

As usual I won’t hold my breath!

View Comment

TincksPosted on2:08 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Auldheid says:
February 16, 2015 at 1:35 pm

Cap doffed. Splendid stuff.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on2:48 pm - Feb 16, 2015


So spfl state that no action to be taken concerning sectarian singing at lc semi final. They have always turned a blind eye to the issue now they can officially ignore the issue. Big sigh of relief from CO no doubt.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on3:36 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Kenneth Roy in the Scottish Review (which is always worth a read, IMHO) on David Murray:

http://www.scottishreview.net/KennethRoy5a.html

“Good bankers”, indeed!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:07 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Jingso.Jimsie says:
February 16, 2015 at 3:36 pm

Don’t know what to make of that article. It started off looking like it was going to be insightful and hard hitting, but ended up petering out – and looking for the next David Murray!

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on4:34 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Ewan Murray on form today on twitter. Seems to be more outspoken on football these days. Oh well, if the others won’t bring on the golf pundits…

Ewan Murray
@mrewanmurray
Remember folks- an Elgin player could be banned for betting on York v Southend. Tens of thousands belting out sectarian songs? “Carry on”..!
4:10pm – 16 Feb 15

PS Bravo @Auldheid. To the heart of the matter.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on4:40 pm - Feb 16, 2015


I see Rangers First has just signed-up its 10,000th member in less than a year making it the biggest football fan share purchasing group in the UK. Certainly an interestig record especially as there is at least one other group buting shares and also individual share purchasers.

Of course, other than those who bought at the IPO, none of the shares bought has injected any money into the club although the possibility of being able eventually to exercise some control appears to be a powerful driver.

Obviously if the club collapses it could bankrupt the operating company which could bring down the holding company with shareholders in it losing out.

If the club survives the egm then the steady influx of fan cash to buy shares will tend to keep the price high which might tempt some of the mystery overseas members to cash-in – as they only paid 1p a share – and decide the time has come to depart.

So interesting developments but equally the high share price makes it more expensive for major players to increase their percentage shareholdings.

Funny how such a bitterly divided fan group manage to unite to save their club but are deeply riven over supporting their team and Board.

It could be that if DK & T3B pull of the egm then MA will see the sense of doing some kind of deal because obviously his fortune will be improved by an upsurge in fan interest.

But there is still a financial chasm to be bridged to meet post-austerity running costs and a large amount to fund a team either to compete at least to mid table Premiership or to win the Championship next year without any slip-ups.

And the slight, if rather expensive, problem of a new manager and coaching staff.

If they make it IMO it will be very tightly run and I just don’t see how it can be achieved without Ashley’s millions but T3B can’t use Ibrox as security and I doubt if Ashley will continue with life-support without security.

Methinks this saga has a long way to go 🙄

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on4:50 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Re Danish’s Ewan Murray tweet. I hadn’t picked up on the Elgin player. I wonder if he will get the same leniency Simmonsen did? 😈

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on4:57 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Allyjambo says:
February 16, 2015 at 4:07 pm
Jingso.Jimsie says:
February 16, 2015 at 3:36 pm

Don’t know what to make of that article. It started off looking like it was going to be insightful and hard hitting, but ended up petering out – and looking for the next David Murray!
———————————————————-
Jeesuz let’s hope they don’t find him as I don’t think the Holyrood Purse could affors it

What really narked me about the article is Roy’s nonsense:

If semi-independent Scotland wishes to finance higher state benefits and a superior health service, it will need the crazy guys to generate the wealth to make it all possible. Where are they?

What will be required is people and businesses that pay the taxes due and also adequately fund their pension scheme obligations.

And also who don’t end-up managing to buy-back the good bits of their failed business empire unless it is sold at Public Auction to the highest bidder to make-up for the money lost on loans which ultimately the taxpapyer has had to pick-up.

And not a sniff of a Public Enquiry being launched into the whole affair by the Scottish Government. Sir David and his family continues to rise it would seem.

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on4:57 pm - Feb 16, 2015


The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty? says:
February 16, 2015 at 12:54 pm
ThomTheThim says:
February 16, 2015 at 11:55 am

Ref yesterday’s Hamilton v Aberdeen game, one thing that often amuses/bemuses me, is the situation when a valid goal is ruled out,due to an official’s mistake.

The assumption that the final result would be enhanced by the inclusion of the ruled out score.

I don’t believe that to be the case as, if the goal had been allowed, the game would restart from the centre spot, instead of a free kick from the six yard box.

Therefore, every subsequent play would be altered, meaning that the flow of the game changes.

That’s what makes it such a great game, the randomness of the play.

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

That’s amused/bemused me for years too, Thom, and I couldn’t agree more.

Not only in the scenario you describe, but also in any “wrong-call” incident which leads to folk authoritatively opining on what the outcome would have been if the play had/hadn’t been stopped/allowed to continue.

The subsequent alteration in play which you described is spot-on IMO.

I’ve also always been amused/bemused by the frantic efforts of attackers attempting to retrieve the ball from the net following a goal (or worse, the defenders’ equally determined attempts to stop them, thereby risking a caution ) and rushing upfield to place it, purposefully, on the centre spot.

It apparently has never occurred to anyone that, nomatter how quickly the attacking team return the ball to the centre spot, the defending team control the speed of the restart.

Adrenaline-fuelled behaviour, no doubt, but bizarre nevertheless.

9 6 Rate This

*******
I would have thought that the point that I made and that you endorsed would have been self evident, once anyone stopped and thought about it.

Therefore it is interesting to note that to date we have accumulated eleven TDs!

Ah well, I suppose the “if onlys”keep the pub debates going! 🙄

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on5:15 pm - Feb 16, 2015


tykebhoy says:
February 16, 2015 at 4:50 pm
Re Danish’s Ewan Murray tweet. I hadn’t picked up on the Elgin player. I wonder if he will get the same leniency Simmonsen did? 😈
======================================

I think Ewan Murray has missed out a “for example” in regards to “an Elgin player”.

Sometimes, brevity doesn’t make for clear understanding.

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on5:26 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Good one Auldheid

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on5:27 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Clubs in general do not want to be held accountable for the action of their supporters. It is a hostage to fortune for them , which is why I used that phrase to describe Ann Budge’s public comments on vandalism and abuse at the Cup game at Tynecastle against Celtic.

Clubs have very limited ability to stop bad behaviour by fans. Regardless of rivalry we have to ask is it right to punish the clubs for something outwith their control. When a club inflames tensions it should be open to sanction. Selling Orange Strips and crass and thinly veiled supremacist and sectarian comments such as Rangers being the 2nd most important institution behind the Church of Scotland, should have been tackled. Like everything else in Cambell Ogilvies remit that involved David Murray, it was ignored and nothing was done.

There are examples of bad fans and good owners though. Aberdeen had a huge problem with violent fans, mostly outside grounds but inside as well. This happened under Dick Donalds ownership, and you could not have had a better intentioned decent owner than him.

Should he have been punished ?

The recent outbreaks of large scale sectarian singing by Rangers fans is outwith the control of Ashley and the Easdales. However Regan is wrong when he attempts to dismiss any consequences for the club.

The SFA should operate 3 ( or 2 ) strikes policy with regards to this. UEFA have charged and penalised Celtic on a number of occasions for stupidity by morons supporting the club. None of the offences were overly serious, but they were idiotic and they were dealt with.

If the SFA had previoulsy issued Rangers with a warning over sectarian singing by fans , and a suspended sentence ( points deduction or fine or ban) on the next occasion this reocurred . Now i’m not talking about a dozen neds chanting . I am talking about thousands singing in unison in an illegal manner. Should that happen, with a suspended sentence sitting over the head of the club, then the club could have no complaints.

The reason this isn’t implemented is , in my view , because Clubs, most of them, don’t trust their own fans and won’t vote to bring this in. Their may be , almost certainly is , an element within the SFA who’s priority is to ensure Rangers are not held to account, however the clubs could change this if they really wanted to.

It is very disappointing that there is no leadership on this, and that doesn’t just apply to Celtic. Other have to step up, and given Ann Budge’s previous highly vocal interventions, she should be doing something now on the general problem

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on5:33 pm - Feb 16, 2015


tykebhoy says:
February 16, 2015 at 4:50 pm
———-

All eyes on North.

Graham Spiers was also on form last weekend, actually doing less fence-sitting than usual on the Saturday evening Off the Ball. Called out the SFA regarding a few things and mentioned that if the SFA won’t implement their own rules they might as well not have them.

Also nice to know there may be a Mass at Murray Park this week. Don’t know if it’s a wind-up, but the Archbishop of Glasgow will apparently perform a Mass and blessing of the Inter Milan team at MP, since the training ground was so graciously offered to our Italian brothers by Ibrox.

Lovely.

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on5:33 pm - Feb 16, 2015


I see Parma are in a bit of a mess financially owe millions in unpaid salaries. It will be interesting to see how this one works out.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:34 pm - Feb 16, 2015


I note the Official Rangers Fan Board has announced:

Effective immediately, Tom Clements, Corporate Hospitality representative and RFB Chair has resigned from the RFB due to personal reasons. The RFB wishes him well and thanks him for his contributions to date. The remaining RFB members will continue to work as hard as we can in support of our great club.

RFB seem to be having problems with the minutes of last Wednesday’s joint meeeting with Llambias and Leach still not available for distribution.

Apparently the RFB Secretary is based in Canada and can’t make meeting and seems to heve had some kind of communication problem when covering last Wednesday’s meeting which has increased the difficulty in producing the minutes.

They were always going to be difficult minutes to produce as Bears had submitted a large number of questions which Llambias had promised to answer.

There also appears to be no news today on the alleged incident involving some kind of incident in a Glasgow Bar/Hotel reportedly involving Llambias last Wenesday night.

However there is no suggestion that the alleged later incident had any connection with the Official Rangers Fan Board meeting or any participants from the Fan Board.

Wrt the later incident some media coverage states that Police Scotland are investigating the alleged incident whereas other media coverage states that Police Scotland have no report of the alleged incident.

Once Police Scotland work out what they are doing or not doing I shall provide an update. I wondered if any members of the SMSM has asked Police Scotland for clarification?

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on5:40 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Quick but short quiz
1)when was the last time Cambell Ogilvie said something constructive about Scottish Football.
2)when was the last time CO said anything about football
3)when was the last time Stuart Regan said anything constructive about Scottish Football
4)When was the last time Stuart Regan said anything about football
Points-questions 1 & 3 10 points for correct dates and location
2 & 4 10 points for correct date and location
Winner first to score 1 point

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:01 pm - Feb 16, 2015


A friendly Bear has just advised that the Rangers Fan Board doesn’t actually issue the minutes of any joint meetings between the club and the Board but this is done on the Rangers Offishal website.

I suppose it will be after the egm then especially as – as I reported earlier – a large number of questions were asked at last Wednesday night’s meeting.

UPDATE: Just to let you all know we’ve compiled a total of 17 A4 pages, 6194 words worth of valid questions we’ll be putting to the RFC Board on Wednesday. Thank you for each and every one of them. We will endeavour to confront the RFC Board with every question and report back to you all

Apparently many posts of a similar nature were deleted to avoid duplication with the most frequently asked question being: ‘When uryi gonny git tae f*ck?’ or similar variants on the same theme.

View Comment

the taxman comethPosted on6:06 pm - Feb 16, 2015


http://www.shareprophets.com/views/10636/the-worthington-fraud-series-part-3-the-case-of-the-well-dodgy-invoice

“My series on the fraud that is Worthington (WRN) continues today with an invoice that raises all sorts of questions. By now the bully boy lawyers for Worthington who have threatened me with action should be starting to sense the scope of the material I am sitting on and there is buckets more to come. The invoice comes from 2013 and is linked to Rangers Football Club.

You will remember that the Worthington Pension Fund (Jerome) leant c£3 million to Rangers just before it went into administration under Mr Craig Whyte. Craig will shortly stand trial on fraud charges relating to that affair. Mr Whyte’s long-time business associate is Aiden Earley, himself a man disqualified from acting as a company director.

The invoice is in full – I have only redacted the bank details of David Simpson who was a director of Worthington with Doug Ware and also – with Ware – in charge of Jerome – Mr Simpson is also a lawyer.

Previous material revealed by me shows questions being raised about Ware & Simpson’s suitability as Trustees of Jerome (HERE) and also why Simpson really quit as a director of Worthington (HERE).

This invoice sees Simpson as a barrister invoice Worthington PLC for £35,000 for arranging the Rangers deal. You will see that the client reference is Earley.

You can see the invoice HERE

Hang on henry, er:

1. What has Earley (the disqualified director who was taking loans out of Worthington) got to do with this deal? More on that later.

2. Why is Worthington PLC being invoiced when the transaction was between Craig Whyte’s Rangers FC and Jerome? Again, I know the answer but will save that for another day.

3. Given that Simpson had only just stepped down as a director of Worthington (because of Earley’s undeclared loans from Worthington) and been forced to step down as a Trustee of Jerome (by the regulator) is there not a conflict of interest in him advising on the ill-fated loan from Jerome to Rangers and banking such a huge fee?

Questions, questions – the web grows more tangled. But by now you are starting – I hope – to understand that Jerome is critical to this fraud.

To read part 1 of the Worthington fraud series click here

To read Part 2 of the Worthington fraud series click here

I shall be revealing more about Worthington and its fraud and the similarities with Quindell on Monday evening (TONIGHT) at the ShareProphets seminar starting at 6 PM at 91-95 Clerkenwell Rd, London EC1R 5BX. “

View Comment

McCaig`s TowerPosted on6:11 pm - Feb 16, 2015


ecobhoy says:

February 16, 2015 at 1:47 pm
———————————-
To attempt to elaborate on my point about share ownership: as mentioned, my belief is that it is common for small investors to buy “their” shareholdings via nominee companies. Whilst the small investor is the beneficial owner and will receive dividends and capital gains/losses as normal, technically the nominee will usually be the member of the company and will retain voting rights. I suspect in normal circumstances many small investors aren’t too fussed about attending AGMs and voting; the nominee arrangement is cheaper, and may be the default option. Should the small investor so desire, they can probably arrange the appropriate authority to attend an AGM and essentially exercise their own proxy.

Obviously, being a shareholder in a football clumpany is a different ball game, and it may well be that the small investor is a fan who wants the share certificate and the voting rights.

However, I wonder whether it is the case that many fans do not actually have the rights that they believe “their” shareholding should confer (i.e. the nominee holding is not “temporary” as described). It is one thing turning up at a well publicised meeting at Ibrox, being admitted and then waving your hands in the air at various votes (when it may not actually count for anything); it might be a different matter for disenfranchised fans to pitch up at a London hotel and be told that not only are they not allowed entry, “their” vote has already been cast.

Possibly the nominee companies are wise to this and have consulted their investors; possibly most of the small shareholders are “certificated” and have voting rights. However I wonder if this is the case.

On the wider point of fan ownership, Supporters Direct used to be unequivocal in their advice to fans of financially distressed clubs – don’t pour good money after bad in an attempt to stave off an insolvency; instead save it and use it to rescue the club post-insolvency. Again, I wonder if the various supporters’ organisations, whilst well-meaning, may be ignoring this wisdom in their share purchases.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on6:32 pm - Feb 16, 2015


ecobhoy says:
February 16, 2015 at 2:02 pm

It puts the Police in an impossible position, but, responsibility is not one of the SFA/SPFL’s core values, now, is it?

View Comment

PeterPosted on6:50 pm - Feb 16, 2015


@briggsbhoy: February 16, 2015 at 8:35 am

“On the 14th of June 2012 a newly incorporated company purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, INCLUDING RANGERS FC”

Including Rangers FC?

What exactly is “Rangers FC” in this statement made by Lord Nimmo Smith?
Is it deliberately convoluted to legally say one thing but emotionally mean another?

Is it an entity that players can sign for? Nope – that was The Rangers FC PLC

Is it an entity that can enter into contracts? Nope – that was The Rangers FC PLC

Is it an entity that can compete in association football in its own right, separate from the company that owns & operates it (according to SPL rules)? Nope – it is not an unincorporated association, it has no committee, members or constitution. It’s not legally recognised and to be quite frank, doesn’t even exist. It can’t enter into any competition, it can’t claim to have won a single trophy.

So what is this “Rangers FC?” in the context given? Could it be the trademarks or the IP rights?

It certainly isn’t a “club” – and to be quite honest at the time when Rangers went bust there was never any notion that the club lived on. What Lord Nimmo Smith chooses to say 6 months after the rejection of a CVA and the formation of Sevco(Scotland) who later renamed to The Rangers FC is irrelevant anyway. His remit was not to rule or decide on the continuation of a club.

The SFA / SPFL have used the Lord Nimmo Smith report as their basis for continuing the same club myth. But why choose that report when it had nothing to do with the “continuation of the club? They could easily have taken the words of Colin Bishopp, Upper Tribunal Judge at the UTT when he said:

“but it should nevertheless not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a “club”, in the sense of an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its shareholders.”

Was this “Rangers FC” a commercial enterprise with shareholders? I hardly think so.

Remember, no-one was charged with determining whether Rangers FC continued as a club, So why choose the words of Lord Nimmo Smith and his report that was privately obtained and did not go through the courts (it was his professional opinion based on information given to him by The Scottish Premier League & the Scottish Football Association) & reject the words of Judge Colin Bishopp that was legally binding and through the courts?

Let that sink in for a minute.

“Including Rangers FC?”

Aye, if you say so.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:51 pm - Feb 16, 2015


ThomTheThim says:
February 16, 2015 at 4:57 pm
==================================

Well said Thom. It does my head in when commentators and pundits say this player or that team ‘could have scored x goals’. The simple fact is once the ball is centred there is no guarantee of which pattern the game will take. It is laziness of the highest order.

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on7:05 pm - Feb 16, 2015


https://www.facebook.com/SonsOfStruth/posts/1599271966970592

Rangers fan board meeting, big spiel

in other news, statement o clock tomorrow at 7am re EGM venue, per Grant/STV

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on7:30 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Barcabhoy says:
February 16, 2015 at 5:27 pm

*******
As sectarian songs are proscribed in Scotland and not just within football grounds, then I would suggest that the ultimate responsibility rests with Police Scotland.
As the SFA are washing their hands of the law, effectively turning the clock back to pre OBA days, then haven’t PO a responsibility to act.
Is it not they who license football grounds?
I may be totally wrong here, as I haven’t lived in Scotland since PC Murdoch patrolled the streets, keeping law and order .

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on7:34 pm - Feb 16, 2015


upthehoops says:
February 16, 2015 at 6:51 pm
ThomTheThim says:
February 16, 2015 at 4:57 pm
==================================

Well said Thom. It does my head in when commentators and pundits say this player or that team ‘could have scored x goals’. The simple fact is once the ball is centred there is no guarantee of which pattern the game will take. It is laziness of the highest order.

3 0 Rate This

*****
I think a better way to phrase it would be that ” X had x opportunities to score today, but only for the incompetence of the officials, he only managed four”. 😀

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on7:35 pm - Feb 16, 2015


upthehoops says:
February 16, 2015 at 6:51 pm

ThomTheThim says:
February 16, 2015 at 4:57 pm
==================================

Well said Thom. It does my head in when commentators and pundits say this player or that team ‘could have scored x goals’. The simple fact is once the ball is centred there is no guarantee of which pattern the game will take. It is laziness of the highest order.
=======================================
Any team in any game “could have scored x number of goals” as that statement can be taken as a meaningless pre-event truism as no outcome is predetermined. Post-event it is equally meaningless, due to the nature of the event and the endless permutations available. Should have is more appropriate, as a striker should put away chances, although that is only really valid with the last kick of the game. I could have scored the winning goal in the World Cup final, but the probability of that was off the radar.

There is no way of extrapolating from the hypothetical reversal of, for example, an honest mistake. The Watford v Leicester example that I mentioned earlier today shows that extreme outcomes can arise, albeit the probability is much lower than the median outcome that is the basis of journalistic (or punter’s) assumption. Had that decision been reversed retrospectively, what was the probability that Watford would have scored in the few seconds remaining?

I like the “lucky to get nought” expression. Strange but true at the same time.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on7:50 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
February 16, 2015 at 9:20 am

neepheid says:
February 16, 2015 at 8:18 am
——

Good link that. Everything in colours and pie charts. Ok, it was the shares of Milton as well, which I can’t find in the list (Artemis & Milton the same?).

Even Felix Magath had/has more than Artemis. But if it helps gain a majority then I suppose it’s significant. Still can’t believe King and the others are willing to spend their life savings on this uncertain project. Have they been under the bonnet?
=================================================
If they have, did they see Kieran Prior in there?
He said that he was going to look under the bonnet, but hasn’t been seen or heard of since.

He’s either still in Narnia, or he’s made it to the safety of the Floor 6 bunker with RCO & SR.

View Comment

James ForrestPosted on7:57 pm - Feb 16, 2015


This might well be the article that annoys everyone … but today the SPFL’s decision not to open disciplinary proceedings in relation to the League Cup semi final was the right call … but for the wrong reasons.

http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/can-you-hear-the-peepil-sing/

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on8:08 pm - Feb 16, 2015


briggsbhoy says:
February 16, 2015 at 5:33 pm

I see Parma are in a bit of a mess financially owe millions in unpaid salaries. It will be interesting to see how this one works out.
========================
Well they do have a rather chequered history and looking at that I think we can work out exactly what will happen.

Those of a sensitive disposition OC/NC wise may wish to look away now….. 😈

“The club was in turmoil and was ordered into liquidation by the Court of Parma in 1968, changing its name to Parma Football Club that year. In 1969, another local team, Associazione Calcio Parmense, won promotion to Serie D. On 1 January 1970, A.C. Parmense adopted the sporting licence of the liquidated club which had been formed in 1913. This meant that it had the right to use the crociato shirts, the badge and the city’s name.”

and you might want to look away again…

“In April 2004, the club was declared insolvent following the financial meltdown of Parmalat…The club re-formed as Parma Football Club in June 2004”

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parma_FC#Re-birth_and_improvement_.281968.E2.80.931989.29

IIRC it was Hirsuite Pursuit who pointed out to me during the first OC/NC debate on here that Italian clubs operate something that comes close to being a franchise system.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on8:11 pm - Feb 16, 2015


ecobhoy says:
February 16, 2015 at 2:02 pm

It would appear Brysonianism is not only alive and well but thriving and spreading with the mantra that sectarian chants isn’t a breach of SPFL Rules.

I am sure our SMSM will be along on the next tram car to ask:’If NOT? Why NOT?’.

As usual I won’t hold my breath!
=================================================
It might not breach the SFPL rules, but surely it breaches the law of the land (OBFTC ), and it is certainly breaches the rules of common decency.

Have the SPFL even issued a statement condemning what happened, emphasising their opposision to such behaviour and stressing that they will be redoubling their efforts to ensure that the Scottish disease be placed in the history books under S for Shame?

Like Ecobhoy, I won’t be holding my breath.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:58 pm - Feb 16, 2015


@The Cat
Hasn’t there been a strange cast of characters? Thinking back, it’s thrown together a completely bizarre group..

@parttimearab
I wonder if that situation is because many Italian clubs don’t own the stadium they play in. I understand many are leased from the council or private owners. The club more easily becomes a nomadic entity, existing legally and separately from what we think of as spiritual home and assets. So, club goes bust, newco starts with new deal to lease same home, ergo many believe same club. The ‘community of fans’ still exists, certainly.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on9:10 pm - Feb 16, 2015


On phoenixism.

This is not a matter for HMRC or BDO to decide. Phoenixing is not an offence. Neither does it render the newco liable for the debts of oldco. Newco cannot become liable for the debts of oldco even if it claims to the world at large that it IS oldco.

HMRC have the ability to request a cash bond if they think there is a phoenix . This is to cover the risk of a repeat insolvency.

Liquidators will report anyone they think has breached the prohibited names rules under s216 of the Insolvency Act. But that section applies to directors of oldco – not to newco. Newco commits no offence under s216 by using a similar name. Directors of oldco who get involved in newco may well commit an offence.

So neither HMRC nor liquidators are responsible for enforcing prohibited names legislation.

If there is a breach of the provision then it is a criminal offence by the director and that director can be made liable for the debts of newco.

By the way, BDO will long ago have reported to the government on the conduct of the pre-insolvency directors. That does not mean that they won’t be updating that report as they go along. Disqualification proceedings, if they happen, usually take a fairly long time to be initiated (and it is not BDO or HMRC who initiate them).

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:23 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Maybe by the way the SMSM wrote about the sectarian singing.
But the match was marred by sectarian chants from the Rangers support.
And the SPFL.
A spokesman for The SPFL said: “Official reports from the match are still awaited. However, it is clear from information already received that all parties prepared properly and thoroughly for the match and, to date, we have not seen any evidence of any breach of SPFL Rules.

Maybe now the SMSM will ask the SPFL why sectarian singing is not breaking the rules, and what are they going to do about it.
Like all, I won’t be holding my breath.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on9:35 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
February 16, 2015 at 8:58 pm

@parttimearab
I wonder if that situation is because many Italian clubs don’t own the stadium they play in.
====================================
Could be Danish although Italian fans can be just as attached to a stadium as Scottish ones, particularly those who stand in the ‘curva’

I have a gut feeling that it may have more to do with an identification between club and city in a country that was once composed of city states…

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on9:50 pm - Feb 16, 2015


1) – Re Sectarian chanting, if the SFA have done nowt, will UEFA now step in (they have fined “clubs” for the odd banner or two)

2) Judge Colin Bishopp (and Rangers own Solicitor – admitted Rangers died, and even corrected the date)!

3) Cheating – independent panels – fines
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/lance-armstrong-loses-dollar10-million-arbitration-ruling/ar-BBhDJTN?ocid=mailsignoutmd

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:09 pm - Feb 16, 2015


You beat me to it jl, but good to see Armstrong get his comeuppance: $10M is a sore one, and I’m sure that there are plenty more civil suits to come.

So was watching the Preston ManU FA tie today, and really enjoyed a proper, honest cup-tie and thrilled when Preston scored first. I expected them to tire in the second half, and it was unfortunate that Rooney felt the need for ‘alleged simulation’ to close out the win.

But that’s what any footie fan wants: a good, competitive game based on honest application of the rules – both on and off the pitch.

Armstrong is a prime example of how – eventually – cheats should be appropriately punished, and their legacies corrected. Regardless of how ‘big’ they are in their sport.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:17 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Campbellsmoney says:
February 16, 2015 at 9:10 pm

As well as the education from Cambellsmoney I think a lot of people forget that while they pulled the plug on the oldco HMRC made public comment at the time to the effect they wanted to see football being continued to be played at Ibrox.

Therefore if they were wanting to stop the circus they would have done something long time ago.

As long as the newco pay their taxes Hector doesn’t give a hoot.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:20 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Rangers Fan Board Minutes

8. Did Mike Ashley fund Charles Green in the Rangers takeover? When did Mike Ashley (and/or associates) first become involved with Rangers FC?
Why have you allowed Mike Ashley to increase his hold over Rangers in the face of SFA objections on dual ownership? Were recent comments regarding Sports Direct not having a shareholding in any other club an indication that Sports Direct will be a shareholder in Rangers FC to circumvent SFA regulations?
DL: Absolutely not.
BL: During the float of 2012
BL: MASH Holdings is Mike Ashley’s privately owned company
BL: Sports Direct are not shareholders currently. But they could be

SoS Founder states: Is that right Mr llambias, we have information that Mike Ashley was indeed an initial investor and had handed over his investent prior to the flotation.
———————————————-
It is a matter of record that the TRFCL Board minute of 31 October 2012 shows Mike Ashley as an additional placee for 3 million shares at Section 7.2.

At Section 16.1 the same minute notes that of the £4 million TRFCL had in the bank £1 million came from Mike Ashley.

As RIFC Plc didn’t float until December 2012 and the TRFCL minute apparently shows Mr Ashley investing in the company that took over the business and assets of Rangers prior to the float date it appears that Mr Llambias is incorrect in his statement or the minute is wrong. I assume calls will be made for clarification.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:38 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Here was me thinking and posting earlier that there might be an agreement between MA and T3B that could avoid an egm. Perhaps I was too hasty having seen the rather embarassing comment made by Mr Leach wrt to the offer made by the T3B which seemed to suggest they wouldn’t be able to come-up with the wonga.

I’m sure that isn’t what was actually meant and perhaps the minute is wrong but I’m sure Mr Leach will clear it all up asap. Poop scoops and doggy bags will be provided at all future meetings of Rangers’ directors and the Rangers Official Fan Board.

Could you imagine what might happen if the elephant in the room let rip 😆

BL: Not for minuting – the Three Bears shit themselves when they thought we’d accept their deal.

It’s always worth checking that when you say something shouldn’t be minuted that you actually check that it isn’t. Otherwise you can land in dog shit up to your neck.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:59 pm - Feb 16, 2015


An interesting insight into the MA business philosophy if the Rangers Offishal Fan Board minute is correct:

12. As Ashley is looking more and more likely to be in control of Rangers what is his short term plan and long term plan for Rangers? Can Mike Ashley or his representatives tell us his vision for the club?

DL: We can’t speak for Mike Ashley. SD has a football priority going forward and affiliation with 5 different clubs: Oldham, Sheffield Wednesday, Portsmouth, Newcastle and Rangers (was this correct?). Their model is taking over as many retail operations in football clubs and putting them ‘into the SD machine’ for ongoing retail revenues. I believe they can help Rangers sell more shirts overseas than we could ever have done on our own.

BL: I haven’t spoken to Mike Ashley since I left SD in September. Derek hasn’t spoken to him for longer than that, so we can’t speak to what his plans are.

The ‘SD Machine’ sounds really scary if you’re a football club waiting to lose your old shirt 🙄

Still nice to see that DL and BL are running rangers with no intereference4 from MA and that should give great comfort to the SFA.

I wonder what parties, on both sides, have actually negotiated all the recent loan deals and if that wasn’t arranged in conversations I would assume that it would have to have been done by email, twitter, fax, texts or sign language, possibly smoke signals or dead letter drops.

I know I’m a pest and if I’d been in the meeting I would be that pesky guy asking for totally unnecessary details. It’s just the way I am 😆

PS: Weren’t DL and BL representing MASH at some point on the Rangers Board? I’m a bit confused over that as there’s been that many contradictory notices made to AIM right enuff I’ve lost the plot 😉

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on11:08 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
February 16, 2015 at 8:58 pm

@The Cat
Hasn’t there been a strange cast of characters? Thinking back, it’s thrown together a completely bizarre group..

@parttimearab
I wonder if that situation is because many Italian clubs don’t own the stadium they play in. I understand many are leased from the council or private owners. The club more easily becomes a nomadic entity, existing legally and separately from what we think of as spiritual home and assets. So, club goes bust, newco starts with new deal to lease same home, ergo many believe same club. The ‘community of fans’ still exists, certainly.
===============================
King’s Lynn Town here in Norfolk are a new club that started at the bottom when King’s Lynn FC went bust. They play at the same ground with the same local support base, but are very much accepted as being a new club, although as with their predecessor they represent the town and the larger West Norfolk/Fenland area. Like the general situation outside the UK, the ground was not owned by the club, but in this case, the borough council.

We should see the situation repeated in Hereford before too long, where the council have no tenant for their ground following the demise of Hereford United, just as we did previously in Aldershot (FC and Town) and Halifax (Town AFC and FC Halifax Town), amongst others. Same ground with the same owner/same community/new club in all instances.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on11:09 pm - Feb 16, 2015


James Forrest says:
February 16, 2015 at 7:57 pm
This might well be the article that annoys everyone … but today the SPFL’s decision not to open disciplinary proceedings in relation to the League Cup semi final was the right call … but for the wrong reasons.

http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/can-you-hear-the-peepil-sing/

================================

Normally a fan of your stuff James but that was dire.

Since when do we not call sectarianism sectarianism? Your nationalist friends NEED to paint one as bad as the other for votes, shame on you for punting that line mate. You should be ashamed.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:17 pm - Feb 16, 2015


By far the most interesting questions haven’t been answered and there’s gazillions of them.

Perhaps one the Bears might have given their eye teeth to get an answer on is:

IBROX
61. Who owns Ibrox stadium and Auchenhowie?
62. Do we have a plan to re-furbish Ibrox? If so what and when?
63. What are the plans for Edmiston House?

However there really is so much stuff there I’m sure we’ll be pulling bits out for yonks.

View Comment

James ForrestPosted on11:28 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Bawsman:

This is exactly why I hate discussing this. All rationality goes out the window.

I call sectarianism exactly that in the article, and I have a long record in calling it out. I make no excuses for the kind of filth that engaged in that singing recently …

My “nationalist friends” are not the only people who cannot seperate political songs from songs of hate … a large section of the population in this country is sick and tired of both, and there are times when I have a great deal of sympathy with them on that score.

But I am against ANY law which limits free expression. I can tell the difference between bigoted songs and political ones … but I wouldn’t crimalise or legislate against either.

The SPFL took a cowardly decision today … I agree with it, but I don’t agree with the reason they did it. They didn’t do it to protect free speech. They did it to protect themselves, and that stinks.

The subject depresses me. I am not going to change a single mind on any of the issues. It’s caused me a mountain of grief because I can actually seperate a SINGLE aspect of a party’s political platform from the rest of it. I actually got dragged into an argument last night with someone who told me they want a party that will protect their “Catholic culture”, said person who was voting Green without knowing they are opposed to faith based schooling …

It’s not for nothing that sometimes I just feel like chucking it.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on11:41 pm - Feb 16, 2015


wottpi says:
February 16, 2015 at 10:17 pm

Campbellsmoney says:
February 16, 2015 at 9:10 pm

As well as the education from Cambellsmoney I think a lot of people forget that while they pulled the plug on the oldco HMRC made public comment at the time to the effect they wanted to see football being continued to be played at Ibrox.

Therefore if they were wanting to stop the circus they would have done something long time ago.

As long as the newco pay their taxes Hector doesn’t give a hoot.
===================================================
Indeed.
The fact that RFC went bust owing so much tax indicates that there is much potential tax revenue to be had from an honest business operating in its place. Much more tax than if Ibrox were a boarded up eyesore.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:50 pm - Feb 16, 2015


parttimearab says:
February 16, 2015 at 8:08 pm
briggsbhoy says:
February 16, 2015 at 5:33 pm

I see Parma are in a bit of a mess financially owe millions in unpaid salaries. It will be interesting to see how this one works out.
========================
Well they do have a rather chequered history and looking at that I think we can work out exactly what will happen.

Those of a sensitive disposition OC/NC wise may wish to look away now….. 😈

“The club was in turmoil and was ordered into liquidation by the Court of Parma in 1968, changing its name to Parma Football Club that year. In 1969, another local team, Associazione Calcio Parmense, won promotion to Serie D. On 1 January 1970, A.C. Parmense adopted the sporting licence of the liquidated club which had been formed in 1913. This meant that it had the right to use the crociato shirts, the badge and the city’s name.”

and you might want to look away again…

“In April 2004, the club was declared insolvent following the financial meltdown of Parmalat…The club re-formed as Parma Football Club in June 2004″

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parma_FC#Re-birth_and_improvement_.281968.E2.80.931989.29

IIRC it was Hirsuite Pursuit who pointed out to me during the first OC/NC debate on here that Italian clubs operate something that comes close to being a franchise system.
====================================================================================

http://www.figc.it/Assets/contentresources_2/ContenutoGenerico/20.$plit/C_2_ContenutoGenerico_3817_Sezioni_lstSezioni_1_lstCapitoli_2_upfFileUpload_it.pdf

Apologies for the poor translation below; but yes, the Italian FA retain ownership of what they call “Sporting Title”. A member club in the same region can take over the sporting title of a liquidated club and claim the history of that sporting title.

It is important to note that the Italian clubs never owns the sporting title they use. This always remains under the control of the Italian FA.

In Italy clubs can come and go; but the franchise remains eternal.

You may or may not agree with the priciple; but at least the rules and clear and the process for transferring the franchise (sporting title) is transparent.

No secretive 5WA required in Italy.
😛

Art. 52
sports title
1. The sports title is the recognition by the FIGC technical conditions sports allow, contributing the other requirements of the federal regulations, the participation of a
company to a given championship.

2. In no case the sports title may be subject to economic evaluation or sale.

3. The sports title of a society whose membership is revoked pursuant to art. 16, paragraph 6, can be attributed, by the deadline date of submission of the application to the next championship, to another company by resolution of the Federal President, after consulting binding of Covisoc where the sports title relates a professional league, to provided that the new company, based in the same town in the previous show in deadline of two days before, excluding holidays, of that deadline:
1) to have acquired the entire business of sports company insolvent;
2) you have obtained the affiliation to the FIGC;
3) that he accolade and have fulfilled all the debts of the company which sport was revoked
affiliation or of having guaranteed payment by the issuance of bank guarantee first request;
4) to have adequate capital and sufficient resources to ensure the fulfillment of charges relating to the championship of competence;
5) has filed for professional clubs, the declaration of the legal representative containing a commitment to guarantee with a bank guarantee on first demand bonds from contracts with the members and the acquisition of players. The filing of the surety is provided for the release of execution of contracts.

transitional rule
Declarations and / or determination of insolvency occurred before the publication of
Amendment of paragraph 3, applies the previous arrangement.

4. The sports title of a company, which is revoked membership, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 16, can be attributed to another company on condition that the company in liquidation belongs to Amateur League and the new aspirant to the title will take over and fulfill any debts of that in where liquidation is revoked affiliation.

5. In the event of a merger pursuant to art. 20, to the new company or acquiring are awarded the title higher among those recognized companies which have led to the merger. In case of division or conferment of sports in accordance with art. 20, the sports title of the demerged company or Consignor is attributed respectively to the company resulting from the split that continues the activity sport or the transferee, except as provided in paragraph 6 by amateur scope of that provision.

View Comment

James ForrestPosted on11:51 pm - Feb 16, 2015


Bawsman:

Not looking to argue or fall out with anyone here btw, just clarifying some things there.

In other matters …

http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2015/02/rangers-fan-board-meeting-minutes.html?m=1

A lot of detail in there. Sounds like Llambias was getting a bit sick of the tone of the questioning.

View Comment

ZilchPosted on12:12 am - Feb 17, 2015


My wee boy is 5 years old. He is starting to play football at the weekends at a wee club. Wanted to take a ball to the swing park last weekend – first time he has initiated it. I can’t wait to have a kickabout with him and to share the journey of playing the game.

I also want to share the experience of following my team.

But I have a problem.

To do so means I have to explain to him what all the singing and swearing is about. And why he can’t get a replica strip for his team. Why wearing that strip could endanger his life on the streets of the city he is growing up in.

The Scottish football authorities have again bodyswerved taking any action against Rangers, even though their fans apparently were singing notorious sectarian songs in their thousands at the LCSF. I say apparently because I chose not to watch the game. This was a big part of the reason why.

I read James Forrest’s piece and I agree with a hell of a lot of it. Freedom of speech is an unalienable right and has to be fought for tooth and nail.

It is not an unrestricted freedom. Nor should it be.

The problem I have is that so many folk are demanding the right to say whatever the hell they like at a football ground, that I can’t in good conscience take my family there.

They may not realise it, but ninety minute republicans are despised by real republicans.

And the only people that don’t despise the peepil when they get out the songbook are, well, the peepil. But hey it’s OK, cos nobody likes them and they don’t care.

I respect the right for public free speech.

But if I turned up at the cinema or the theatre and started howling about Derry’s Walls or the Fields of Athenry, I’m pretty sure I would find myself out on the street in jig time.

Is a football match any different?

Football clubs (and it is not just Celtic and Rangers) could end this problem if they wanted to. They pretty much know who is sitting where, who they sold the tickets to and have plenty of CCTV etc.

Am I wrong in thinking that they reserve the right to turf out anyone that they feel is bringing the reputation of the club into disrepute, or potentially jeopardising the business of the club?

Make it clear what material is considered unacceptable. Remove offenders from the stadium (ten per match – the message gets out pretty damn fast) and ban them indefinitely. Travelling fans can be identified too.

I am not interested in criminalising football fans. This can be achieved without anyone going to jail.

I just want to be able to take my wee boy to the game and not have to explain hundreds of years of history and politics and bitter religion.

Don’t get me wrong. I will discuss all of that with him in good time. And he went on his first political protest with me in his wee blue buggy. But a football match is not where I want to have that discussion.

I would fight to defend the right to protest on the streets. But how many lives are worth losing for the right to shout abuse on a football terrace?

Of course the clubs and the football authorities have to consider whether introducing other politically fuelled material (poppies on shirts are political, contentious minute silences etc) is appropriate too. Until we get some sort of broad consensus on this, something that really acknowledges that there are definable boundaries of acceptability, that promoting one political viewpoint is not acceptable… well I ain’t holding my breath. We have a long road to travel there.

Going back to the clubs, I guess the calculation is that people like me will spend less on the club than the obsessives, who only get their adrenaline hit if they sing a few war songs.

Sadly, this is one of those self-fulfilling prophesies that is guaranteed to come true.

Me and the wee man will go to the park for a kickabout, but it is going to be a long time before I take him to see a game or he gets a shirt.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on12:27 am - Feb 17, 2015


Just to say the shareprophet thing is expanding not least in legal challenge fronts.
Personally no comment.

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on12:45 am - Feb 17, 2015


With acknowledgement to Angela Haggerty for bringing this to my attention:

Old Firm documentary German tv 1974: http://youtu.be/19j95pGNzI8

A fascinating insight into Glasgow in 1974. Jimmy Reid is notable for his incredibly accurate predictions of what was happening but, what I take from this is the over reliance of the power of the ‘Old Firm’. 

Scottish fitba’ is immeasurably improved by not having an all pervading ‘Old Firm’!

Discuss!

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on12:58 am - Feb 17, 2015


Zilch says:
February 17, 2015 at 12:12 am
==================================
An excellent thought provoking post.
I typed out a simliar length post at work this lunchtime about how the English game had eradicated racism from grounds and how any incidents are now reported by the fans themselves to stewards and police rather than them having to hunt the perpetrators. That empowerment did not happen overnight.

I didn’t put the post up, as I was struggling to work out how the Scottish disease could be treated to end up with the same outcome.
It has to be driven by political will from the top, but mandated by society. Top pressure would force the clubs and governing bodies to jump into line rather than pay lip service by withholding grants, resticting ground capacities etc. Criminalisation is not the solution, as banning words will not change the way people think.
Football as a whole saying no to sectarianism and excluding those who won’t behave and treating them as pariahs forces a choice of behaving like a civilised person or not going to football for a fixed period, or for repeat offenders sine die.

I am yet to be convinced that the political will is there to make it happen, although being on the outside looking in, that may not reflect the view of those closer to the situation.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on12:59 am - Feb 17, 2015


A solicitor…documents of an interesting nature…a court injunction…

Or just another bluff or guff?

Anyone?

View Comment

castawayPosted on1:12 am - Feb 17, 2015


Zilch says:
February 17, 2015 at 12:12 am
Well put Zilch. It might make some think, with a bit of luck.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on1:16 am - Feb 17, 2015


ecobhoy says:
February 16, 2015 at 10:59 pm

An interesting insight into the MA business philosophy if the Rangers Offishal Fan Board minute is correct:

12. As Ashley is looking more and more likely to be in control of Rangers what is his short term plan and long term plan for Rangers? Can Mike Ashley or his representatives tell us his vision for the club?

DL: We can’t speak for Mike Ashley. SD has a football priority going forward and affiliation with 5 different clubs: Oldham, Sheffield Wednesday, Portsmouth, Newcastle and Rangers (was this correct?). Their model is taking over as many retail operations in football clubs and putting them ‘into the SD machine’ for ongoing retail revenues. I believe they can help Rangers sell more shirts overseas than we could ever have done on our own.

BL: I haven’t spoken to Mike Ashley since I left SD in September. Derek hasn’t spoken to him for longer than that, so we can’t speak to what his plans are.

The ‘SD Machine’ sounds really scary if you’re a football club waiting to lose your old shirt 🙄

Still nice to see that DL and BL are running rangers with no intereference4 from MA and that should give great comfort to the SFA.

I wonder what parties, on both sides, have actually negotiated all the recent loan deals and if that wasn’t arranged in conversations I would assume that it would have to have been done by email, twitter, fax, texts or sign language, possibly smoke signals or dead letter drops.

I know I’m a pest and if I’d been in the meeting I would be that pesky guy asking for totally unnecessary details. It’s just the way I am 😆

PS: Weren’t DL and BL representing MASH at some point on the Rangers Board? I’m a bit confused over that as there’s been that many contradictory notices made to AIM right enuff I’ve lost the plot 😉
=============================================================
If DL & BL’s noses weren’t a foot long after that then call me Gepetto.
Given that MA is facing a dual control enquiry, they’re hardly likely to come out and say that they have daily conference calls with MA and discuss detailed plans for the implementation of what MA wants doing at RIFC/TRFC.
In fact, the dual control enquiry will probably take those minutes as unequivocal evidence that MA has no control or influence and draw a line under it.
After all, the home-brewed Masonic Pinsents report was good enough to see off the CW/CG links. And we haven’t mentioned the 5WA and LNS stitch up for a while, have we?
Paranoid, moi? 🙄

View Comment

gogsPosted on1:25 am - Feb 17, 2015


Lord Wobbly says:
February 17, 2015 at 12:45 am
With acknowledgement to Angela Haggerty for bringing this to my attention:

Old Firm documentary German tv 1974: http://youtu.be/19j95pGNzI8
…………………………….

And quite an interesting admission at 19:40 on the clumpany.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on2:15 am - Feb 17, 2015


Interesting comments from Deloittes in todays Herald

“AUDITORS have sounded a new warning over whether Rangers’ operating company can continue as a going concern.

Deloitte formed the opinion after considering the future financial position, including the need to raise more funds if the Championship club are not promoted this season.

It also raised a fresh warning over the “uncertain outcome” of former Ibrox kingpin Craig Whyte’s legal battle over ownership, after considering the “adequacy” of director disclosures over the case.

Details of the concerns come in newly published accounts for the year ending June, 2014 which showed that The Rangers Football Club Ltd (TRFCL), recorded a loss of £8.1 million – a 54per cent drop on the previous year (£17.6 million).

Whyte, the venture capitalist, who bought Sir David Murray’s majority shareholding in Rangers in May 2011 had always insisted he was the main driver behind Sevco 5088.

The company was identified by administrators in May 2012 as being the newco that was “contractually obliged” to purchase the assets and business of operating company RFC 2012 plc out of administration.

Whyte and his associate, Aiden Earley, have argued that former chief executive Charles Green was working alongside them and that they, consequently, are the rightful owners.

Rangers directors have consistently insisted the claims are of no merit.

Auditors took into account the need for more funding and the directors assumptions in reaching the belief that the company had the resources to continue to operate indefinitely.

Directors of TRFCL, the engine room Rangers subsidiary, in making its ‘going concern’ assumption said forecasts were “critically dependent on the football performance for the rest of the current season” and that the team were promoted to the top flight club at the end of this season.

Rangers dropped to third in the Championship table after a 2-0 defeat at Ibrox to second placed Hibs on Friday and now trail leaders Hearts by 22 points. The leading side get automatic promotion leaving the second, third and fourth placed teams to fight it out with the Scottish Premiership’s second bottom team for the right to be in the top flight.

The accounts show that TRFCL owes parent company Rangers International Football Club Plc (RIFC) £15.667 million which are repayable on demand, but the controlling holding company had no intention to claim the money back “in the foreseeable future”.

Operating costs dropped from £35.304 million in 2012/13 to £25.297 million, staff costs went down from £17.616 million to £13.966 million and the wages to turnover ratio for the year dropped from 44per cent to 38per cent.

The annual report signed off by chairman David Somers says there would be “significant operating profit impact” next year if Rangers were not promoted and indicated the timing of related cashflows would require the need for further funding “towards the end of the period through to the end of January 2016”.

Last month Rangers secured a new refinanced short-term £10 million loan from Sports Direct to prevent the business suffering an insolvency.

The board’s ‘going concern’ statement also included a “key assumption” relating to a rise in season ticket numbers and prices this financial year to reflect an expected return to the Scottish Premiership.

Accounts show the number of season ticket sales dropped from 38,228, to 36,039, before the start of this season. But it is known that Ibrox attendances this campaign have slumped to as low as 11,190 in the wake of growing unrest over the club’s financial dealings.

Auditors Deloitte said the conditions around the need for further funding and other factors including the directors’ own going concern statement indicated “the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt over the company’s ability to continue as a going concern and therefore that the company may be unable to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business”.

It also said that while the company were satisfied after a thorough investigation that Whyte’s claims have no legal merit.

Mr Green has denied that Whyte or Mr Earley were involved in Sevco 5088.

Rangers say Mr Green was the sole director and he had resigned to be the founder director of Sevco Scotland Ltd, the company that took over the assets of the club. It became TRFCL.

Mr Somers while acknowledging there were going concern worries, said that directors “believe that there is a reasonable expectation that the company and its parent company Rangers International Football Club plc will have adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future”.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that the club has found a new venue in London for its extraordinary general meeting on March 4, after the original hotel pulled out.

View Comment

Comments are closed.