Spot the difference?

Avatar 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

Avatar

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

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:47 pm - Mar 3, 2015


wottpi says: March 3, 2015 at 2:39 pm

I am still tickled by the sheer poetry of ‘The Cowden Family’ song sung by fans of East Fife, while of course believing there is not a word of truth in it.
=====================
I resemble that remark. :mrgreen:

Having gone to school in Cowdenbeath, that is.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on2:57 pm - Mar 3, 2015


easyJambo says:
March 3, 2015 at 2:28 pm

Courtesy of a poster on Jambos Kickback

Dave King, The past year.
Feb 2014: King promises £30m
Nov 2014: King promises £16m
Dec 2014: King promises £8m
Mar 2015: King asks fans for money
=================================
He should stand for parliament judging by that diminishing manifesto.

If crowned, will he immediately introduce punitive taxes for the plebeians, or increased match ticket and 2015-16 season book prices as is the modern equivalent?

The blazer sale should start soon after the coronation.
All sizes available with free fitting-up included.
Prices start from £5M each. (That’s an annual lease fee, not a purchase)
Cheques made payable to Sports Direct to save bank charges on the repayment of the working capital loans.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on3:16 pm - Mar 3, 2015


The Cat NR1 says:
March 3, 2015 at 2:57 pm

If crowned, will he immediately introduce punitive taxes for the plebeians, or increased match ticket and 2015-16 season book prices as is the modern equivalent?

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

There are parallels with Blair/Brown and Murray/King here. Brown always coveted Blair’s number one position thinking he was the better man without ever realising how much political skill and charm Blair exercised to make it all look effortless. Although no doubt sincere and well-meaning Brown just never had what it took to be the frontman. King seems to feel the same about Murray (D) but what experience does King have as front man of a turbulent, high-profile plc with intolerant customers expecting daily miracles. The honeymoon will be short and the end result inevitable.

Looking forward, Radar Jackson, who do you think will be the next, next Messiah?

Me? Well Ashley is going nowhere – he’ll just bide his time until it all goes tits up again – and if there are no RRM left to run the show he’ll put in his men to keep the revenue streams flowing – and the SFA can close him down for “undue influence” if they have any cahones by then.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on3:36 pm - Mar 3, 2015


btw KIng’s hubris is already clouding his judegment. Landslides happen when the votes have been counted, not before on the word of your opponent – some statesman eh!

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:00 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Bawsman says:
March 3, 2015 at 9:45 am
As a few will know, Darryl Broadfoot, the SFA’s Communication Director occasionally responded to some of my e-mails to him. The questions got a bit awkward/difficult so he’s fobbed me off to :
Peter McLaughlin
Security & Integrity Officer
Scottish FA
Hampden Park

================================
“Security & Integrity Officer” ?

That’s a strange title combination – never heard of it before.

Does that mean that Mr. McLaughlin has failed in his duties by not personally escorting Ogilvie and Regan off the Hampden premises and confiscating their security passes long before now – for their very public lack of integrity ?

And if Mr. McLaughlin had any integrity left…should he not escort himself off the premises ?

😯

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on4:05 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Where would King and the SFA be if Llambias was leading King on about the “landslide” and it was Ashley who “took control” at Ibrox on Friday.

Stranger things have happened – and I’m not convinced it would be the worst thing for the bears if King and the SFA had been “cynically misled”.

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on4:08 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Ashley’s “punishment”

A Disciplinary Tribunal convened last night in accordance with the Judicial Panel Protocol to consider the following case:

Alleged Party in breach – Michael Ashley

Disciplinary rules allegedly breached –

Disciplinary Rule 19: Except with the prior written consent of the Board: (a) no club or nominee of a club; and (b) no person, whether absolutely or as a trustee, either alone or in conjunction with one or more associates or solely through an associate or associates (even where such person has no formal interest), who: (i) is a member of a club; or (ii) is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a club, or (iii) has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration or a club, may at the same time either directly or indirectly:- (a) be a member of another club; or (b) be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of another club; or (c) have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club.

Outcome – Mr Ashley was found in breach and a fine of £7500 was imposed.

Disciplinary Rule 77: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football.

Outcome – The alleged breach was not proved.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on4:10 pm - Mar 3, 2015


mcfc says:
March 3, 2015 at 3:36 pm

btw KIng’s hubris is already clouding his judegment. Landslides happen when the votes have been counted, not before on the word of your opponent – some statesman eh!
====================================
Maybe he was getting confused with the surveyors report setting out the immediate remedial work required on the property assets? 💡

Your earlier Murray/DK and Blair/Brown comparison seems quite apt.

A fawning press is the only thing that King and Murray would have in common as top dog. Everyone from HMRC down to the local shop has already been bitten by the top dog, and once bitten twice shy leaves King with precious little chance of access to OPM to fund largesse.
Even the most succulent of lamb will lose its flavour if the product on the pitch doesn’t reach the heights that (S)DM achieved, so DK will only have a short honeymoon period before the SMSM head off on a search for the next chosen one.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:12 pm - Mar 3, 2015


“…King’s plans have been accused of lacking detail but he stressed he will reveal all as he sweeps into power…”

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/war-over-dave-king-claims-5264802
==================================
That sentence sums up, IMO, the fundamental problem with the SMSM/SFA/SPFL and the TRFC fans.
They blindly followed, if only initially;

Minty
Whyte
Green [with support from McCoist & Walter]
Ashley
and now apparently King.

You would think they would have learned by now. The SMSM in particular should have demanded the detail up front before supporting King, [I know].

If King ‘is crowned’, then they have all lost any leverage and he will then start passing the hat around the fans and looking for favours from the SFA/SPFL…for the good of Scottish football.

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:19 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Billy Boyce says:
March 3, 2015 at 4:08 pm
Ashley’s “punishment”

Outcome – Mr Ashley was found in breach and a fine of £7500 was imposed.
=======================================

Was it paid immediately in Sports Direct Gift Vouchers (expiry date 06.03.15)?

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on4:25 pm - Mar 3, 2015


£7,500 – you cannnnot be serious. That’s like fining you or me an old penny. Hang on I think there’s one down this sofa somewhere. Yes it’s a SoFA fine !!!

I’ll get my coat

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on4:26 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Billy Boyce says:
March 3, 2015 at 4:08 pm
Ashley’s “punishment”

Outcome – Mr Ashley was found in breach and a fine of £7500 was imposed.
,,,,,,,,
Whit?
No mention of selling SD the Scotland Shirt rights for £1?

Must have been a tough negotiation

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:28 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Billy Boyce says:
March 3, 2015 at 4:08 pm
Ashley’s “punishment”

Outcome – Mr Ashley was found in breach and a fine of £7500 was imposed.

Outcome – The alleged breach was not proved.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=14393
===================================================
That’s it ?

And no mention at all of any required corrective action, and no mention at all of future conduct ?

A farce.

Are we not surprised…? 🙁

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on4:32 pm - Mar 3, 2015


I’ve just emailed Darryl asking if the SFA now see the dual influence matter closed with the application of the paltry fine. Seems to me that having found Mr Ashley in breach, the only logical consequence is to undo the things that proved his dual influence and led to him being found in breach e.g. the 5 loans from his other club. Will update if I get a reply.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on4:36 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Jingso.Jimsie says:
March 3, 2015 at 4:19 pm

Billy Boyce says:
March 3, 2015 at 4:08 pm
Ashley’s “punishment”

Outcome – Mr Ashley was found in breach and a fine of £7500 was imposed.
=======================================

Was it paid immediately in Sports Direct Gift Vouchers (expiry date 06.03.15)?
==========================================
Was the overnight delay due to needing time for medical treatment to stitch up the split sides of MA’s legal team caused by the prolonged and uncontrolled laughter when advised of the proposed sanction?

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:40 pm - Mar 3, 2015


StevieBC says:
March 3, 2015 at 4:28 pm

That’s it ?

And no mention at all of any required corrective action, and no mention at all of future conduct ?

A farce.

Are we not surprised…? 🙁

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

nawlite says:
March 3, 2015 at 4:32 pm
I’ve just emailed Darryl asking if the SFA now see the dual influence matter closed with the application of the paltry fine. Seems to me that having found Mr Ashley in breach, the only logical consequence is to undo the things that proved his dual influence and led to him being found in breach e.g. the 5 loans from his other club. Will update if I get a reply.
===================================

Exactly my thoughts. How does he (Ashley) disentangle himself? Will the SFA have oversight? Loan players, Llambias & Leach & money advanced all need to be looked at, but I suppose they’ll wait until they’ve had Rangers (club or company?) in on the sixteenth.

SFA = Stirring Fudge Again.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on4:42 pm - Mar 3, 2015


I’m not sure of the date of the following but as its about better football governance in the FA I thought it might have lessons for the SFA. An understanding of the complex interdependencies helps understand what drove the 5 way agreement (but at expense of integrity)

The FA Structural Review: Response to Lord Burns’ Consultation Document – The Football Governance Research Centre, Birkbeck, University of London

Introduction

Over the past decade or so the football industry has gone through a period of rapid commercialisation and change. The Football Association has responded to many of these changes as they have occurred, modifying its organisation and structures to deal with specific issues. However, there is an urgent need to review and reform the organisation as a whole. We therefore welcome the Structural Review being carried out by Lord Burns and the consultative and transparent manner in which the review is being conducted. Our initial response below builds on research we have conducted in recent years, much of which is in the public domain.

We feel that the review process itself could contribute to a greater understanding of the football industry and its governance structures and we look forward to seeing the initial findings from the consultation exercise and to contributing to further stages of the review process itself. However, the legacy of the review will depend not just on the findings of the review but also on their successful implementation. Careful consideration should therefore be given to how the recommendations might best be implemented.

The Role of The FA

Football is a complex industry that differs from conventional industries in a number of important respects. These include: strong interdependence between clubs; strong interdependence between the different leagues that make up the football pyramid characterised by flows of resources up and down the pyramid; the inherent tendency for unregulated leagues to become unbalanced ; the strength and (unusual) nature of the supporter-club relationship which means that clubs face soft budget constraints; and the key role played by a wide range of stakeholders, such as, the supporters, the players, local communities, volunteer staff, and organisations, for example, Sport England, Supporters Direct, Football in the Community and the Football Foundation.

The complexity of the football industry and, in particular, the interdependence between different parts of the football pyramid means that football needs an effective governing body capable of regulating the industry as a whole for the common good of the game. Without this overall regulatory function, potential synergies across the industry (pyramid) will remain unrealised and the English game will suffer as a result.

In our view, The FA must be, and must be seen to be, the overall governing body that regulates the game for the common good and represents the industry in the European and international arenas via UEFA and FIFA.

In recent years, growing commercialisation and the breakaway of the Premier League have heightened long-standing tensions and have made the task of governing the game as a whole more difficult. The FA must respond to these challenges and opportunities in a decisive manner and play a leadership role in taking the game as a whole forward. The FA must also have the right structures, capabilities and resources to take and implement decisions effectively and to communicate its mission, strategy and decisions to stakeholders and to the public.

In summary, the main roles of The FA should be:

• Developmental – from the grass roots to the England team
• Representative – of stakeholders as well as of its counties and leagues
• Regulatory, including:
regulation of the whole game, including the FAPL and FL
the rules of the game and discipline
setting overall standards and promoting good governance throughout the game
• Running the England team, the FA Cup, other FA competitions and Wembley

The FA Premier League and the Football League should have responsibility for running and promoting their competitions and representing their member clubs in matters relating to those competitions. However, The FA should be, and should be seen to be the overall governing body of the industry.

Structures

The Board
The current board structure hampers decision making. The board should be re-structured so that no group of directors representing sectional interests can control the board or stop it taking decisions in a timely and effective manner. There should be an independent Chair and separation of powers between the Chair and Chief Executive. The board of directors should be drawn from: the different bodies in the game; executives from The FA; plus a number of non-executive and independent non-executive directors. Directors should receive appropriate induction, training and advice. Particular attention needs to be paid to the question of conflicts of interest. Provided the Board is restructured so that it can take decisions that are in the interests of The FA as a whole, in an effective and timely manner, its remit should be extended to include strategy development subject to amendment and approval by a reformed Council.

The Council
The Council needs to be thoroughly reformed and its roles and functions need to be clearly defined. The membership of Council should reflect the current range of key stakeholders and include representatives from organisations, such as, the FSF, Supporters Direct and the PFA. If Council is to play a role in shaping the strategic direction of The FA, radical reform of Council is required: amongst other changes, its size would need to be reduced to make it an effective working body. This would necessarily increase the workload of Council members. Induction, training and support should be provided for Council members along the lines of that set out by Higgs (2003).

Committees
The Committee structure needs to be reformed and rationalised. There should be clear lines of accountability and proper reporting mechanisms between committees. A map of the committee structure should be published along with the membership, terms of reference and reporting lines for each committee. Where possible the Agendas and Minutes from each committee should be put in the public domain.

Good Governance and the Combined Code

The representative nature of The FA and its Council means that it is not possible to apply the Combined Code in a wholesale fashion. There are, however, elements of the code that would contribute to improved governance at The FA. These include: the appointment of non-executive and independent non-executive directors to the board; the use of a nominations committee for non-executive directors that takes into account ‘the balance of skills, knowledge and experience on the board’; the publication of a report on the work of the nominations committee; formal and rigorous annual evaluation of the performance of the board, its committees and individual directors (this could also be extended to Council). Some of the requirements on auditing, financial reporting and directors’ remuneration are also relevant, as well some of the principles regarding the importance of dialogue between the board and shareholders.

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/hosted/management/mscmres/oldfootballsite1/papers/The%20FA%20Structural%20Review.htm

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on4:43 pm - Mar 3, 2015


£7,500 – that’ll teach those meglamaniac billionaires to mess with the SFA – sorted.

Scottish football needs to stop self harming and build some self esteem so it doesn’t get used and abused by every passing chancer. Oh, and some blood tests.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on4:49 pm - Mar 3, 2015


GoosyGoosy says:
March 3, 2015 at 4:26 pm

Billy Boyce says:
March 3, 2015 at 4:08 pm
Ashley’s “punishment”

Outcome – Mr Ashley was found in breach and a fine of £7500 was imposed.
,,,,,,,,
Whit?
No mention of selling SD the Scotland Shirt rights for £1?

Must have been a tough negotiation
=================================
£7,500 was all that the SFA could afford to pay MA for the inconvenience of his being found guilty. They did offer the brand rights for £1, but MA told them he didn’t want to be linked to a brand with such a toxic reputation amongst its customers.

SFA fining MA FA shows SFA FUBAR.
I’m almost lost for words. :irony:

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on4:55 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Inaction is collusion

Photocopy your season ticket twice – write “The SFA is not Fit and Proper to govern Scottish Football” on both copies.

Send one torn copy to the SFA and the other torn copy to your club’s chairman.

Inaction is collusion – time to start acting.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:56 pm - Mar 3, 2015


The Maximum fines possible on Ashley was £10,000 under Rule 19 and £5,000 under Rule 77.

The club has been charged under Rules 1, 19 and 77. The maximum sanctions are as follows:

Rule 1 – £1,000,000 and/or ejection/ exclusion from the Scottish Cup and/or any player registration restrictions and/or suspension and/or termination of membership and/or any sanction or disposal not expressly provided above, provided that such other sanctions are sanctions listed in respect of other Rules or at Paragraph 3 to this Annex A.

Rule 19 – £10,000

Rule 77 – £500,000 and/or suspension and/or termination of membership

View Comment

ekt1m

ekt1mPosted on5:09 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Is that it? Pay your fine then carry on as before, we the ruling body have done our duty by the rulebook. No “Don’t do it again or else”. No statement about MyCashley following the rules on Dual Influence. The mind boggles.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on5:16 pm - Mar 3, 2015


I have watched many comments on here recently wrt to voting at the scheduled egm.

The only people allowed to vote for a change in the RIFC Plc directors are the shareholders of that company who own it.

Those shareholders it would appear – according to recent reports – have given a ‘landslide’ vote to sack the existing directors and replace them.

The use of the word ‘landslide’ is interesting as that to me suggests that those voting for change consist of more than just Rangers fan shareholders. However that should be clearer fairly soon.

However as I have always stated: It’s up to Rangers supporters and fan shareholders to decide the kind of club they want. They have made their decision and will live with the consequences as would the fans of any other club in a similar situation.

From the Bears I know and chat to it has been quite clear that the overwhelming majority do not want to follow the Ashley ‘Model’ at any cost and indeed the figure they estimated for STs for next year if he remained seems to hover around 12K.

I have also been getting told recently by people with some contacts within the club that the 23K ST figure is hogwash and it’s nearer 18K. I can’t make any objective comment on that but I would usually trust the people telling me.

You know some people would rather fail in a glorious attempt than settle for second best basically for ever. And I think that’s the point a lot of Bears have reached.

They are at the point of No Return IMO and are gambling big style. I think they’ll empty the piggy banks for this one and I think there will be a surge in attendance and STs.

Will it be enough? I don’t know and I’m not sure that DK or T3B know either until they get that bonnet opened.

As to the silent majority of Bears that don’t post here well IMO it looks as though they have spoken by casting their vote and signing-up to the various fan share schemes. And that is their right because it’s their money and their club.

I think there’s a lot of firecrackers and surprises yet to come but I honestly don’t believe if this fan effort collapses financially that there will be enough Rangers supporters left to make it worthwhile for SD to remain – there simply wouldn’t be enough profit to be had IMO.

It’s often forgotten that Ashley has been deeply involved at Ibrox since 2012 – in fact he has been a constant just like the mysterious overseas investors.

It would be interesting to know who they voted for and also some of the institutional investors as it appears they might not have fancied Ashley if the ‘landslide’ victory is correct. And if the II don’t fancy him I wonder why not – that really is a bit of a puzzle for me. Why would they apparently rather back DK than MA?

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on5:17 pm - Mar 3, 2015


ekt1m says:
March 3, 2015 at 5:09 pm

No statement about MyCashley following the rules on Dual Influence.

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

Give Ashley a few days to stop laughing then a few more to regain his voice.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:20 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Andy Newport ‏@AndyNewportPA · 6m6 minutes ago
Rangers announce to Stock Exchange they are starting process which will allow them to draw down second £5m tranche from Mike Ashely’s loan

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:21 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Drawdown
Tue, 3rd Mar 2015 17:10

RNS Number : 4489G
Rangers Int. Football Club PLC
03 March 2015

Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers” the “Club” or the “Company”)

Drawdown

The Board of Rangers announces that the Company has commenced the process of satisfying the conditions for drawdown of the second tranche of the facility announced on 27 January 2015 with SportsDirect.com Retail Limited and associated companies (“SD”) (the “Facility”) in order to meet its cash requirements for the third week of March. Drawdown of the second tranche of the Facility is subject to due diligence by SD. Shareholders should be aware that there are other conditions of drawdown which include a material and adverse change and/or significant, adverse event condition which could impact upon the willingness of SD to release the funds. If the funds are not able to be drawn down from the Facility, alternative sources of external funding will be required.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:24 pm - Mar 3, 2015


So it seems that the club will run out of money in less than two weeks.

Over to you Dave.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on5:25 pm - Mar 3, 2015


2nd £5m sorted??

03 March 2015

Rangers International Football Club plc

(“Rangers” the “Club” or the “Company”)

Drawdown

The Board of Rangers announces that the Company has commenced the process of satisfying the conditions for drawdown of the second tranche of the facility announced on 27 January 2015 with SportsDirect.com Retail Limited and associated companies (“SD”) (the “Facility”) in order to meet its cash requirements for the third week of March. Drawdown of the second tranche of the Facility is subject to due diligence by SD. Shareholders should be aware that there are other conditions of drawdown which include a material and adverse change and/or significant, adverse event condition which could impact upon the willingness of SD to release the funds. If the funds are not able to be drawn down from the Facility, alternative sources of external funding will be required.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on5:27 pm - Mar 3, 2015


God you have to be quick to beat some folk on here 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on5:28 pm - Mar 3, 2015


“alternative sources of external funding will be required.”

“You want some action? I’ll put your ass in traction” – The Tubes 1976 and Derek Llambias 2015

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on5:32 pm - Mar 3, 2015


easyJambo says:
March 3, 2015 at 5:24 pm

So it seems that the club will run out of money in less than two weeks.

Over to you Dave.
=================================

Perhaps Mr King may need to become closer to Mr Ashley than the celebrating hordes would prefer!

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on5:34 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Hey shareholders, how much will your shares be worth after L & L have exercised their “adverse event” clause.

Now that’s what I call 7,500 quids worth of influence – money well spent Mike

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:37 pm - Mar 3, 2015


…and there’s more 😀

03 March 2015

Rangers International Football Club plc

(“Rangers” the “Club” or the “Company”)

Extraordinary General Meeting Voting

The Board of Rangers notes the Press Release from David King issued today. Proxy voting closes tomorrow morning at 10am, and at the current time a significant number of shares have not yet voted; the outcome cannot therefore be determined with certainty. The position of the proxy voting will not be announced ahead of the meeting for regulatory reasons, and in any event shareholders have the right to revoke their proxy vote by attendance in person at the general meeting.

The Directors believe that they have at all times sought to act in the best interests of Rangers for the benefit of its shareholders as a whole and refute in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that this is not the case and in particular any suggestion that they have given their personal interests priority over those of the Company.

By remaining in post the directors wish to give the Company and possible incoming directors (should the Board change) the best possible chance of complying with the AIM rules and of avoiding the risk highlighted in the circular of 06 February 2015 of the Company’s shares being suspended. There can be no guarantee of avoiding suspension.

The Board have reached out to David King in recent days to seek a resolution in the best interests of the Club but regrettably this has not yet proved possible. If control of the board of directors of the Company changes as a result of the general meeting the directors pledge that they will do their utmost to work with the new board in the interests of Rangers Football Club, as they have done and continue to do.

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on5:48 pm - Mar 3, 2015


http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/tranche-warfare/

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on5:50 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Can Doncaster not get a TV deal for all of this?

A corker from MA’s team….nice slapdown too for the presumptious one!

Scottish Football’s gonna need some popcorn this week.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on5:52 pm - Mar 3, 2015


One can only assume, that if the second £5mil loan tranche is not needed until the third week of March, then L & L may have been sweating the cash flow and there could be quite a big pile of deferred bills awaiting payment by the new Chairman – perhaps even to HMRC. Deja Vu all over again anyone? Has Ashley engineered the hospital pass to end all hospital passes? KIng’s next presser might be in a neck brace or body cast.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on6:08 pm - Mar 3, 2015


No flies on Lianna Brinded

“Two of Ashley’s closest allies on the board, James Easdale and Derek Somners, left the board over the last two weeks.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-ashley-fined-over-rangers-influence-2015-3

Well if the SFA make up stuff as they go along, why shouldn’t Liannna 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

MaBawPosted on6:20 pm - Mar 3, 2015


is the £7500 fine being added to the £250,000 fine.

The Ibrox board argued the newco club should not be liable for the fine, but the Scottish Professional Football League last month threw out that argument and said it would withhold £250,000 of broadcast money to recoup the cash.

Rangers asked the Scottish Football Association to overturn that ruling, but a club statement to the London Stock Exchange confirmed that appeal has failed.

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on6:23 pm - Mar 3, 2015


AIM statement
“Rangers International Football Club plc

(“Rangers” the “Club” or the “Company”) ”

…………..

So it is back to being the Club OR the Company

….it only seperates if insolvency events occur?

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on6:27 pm - Mar 3, 2015


MaBaw says:
March 3, 2015 at 6:20 pm

is the £7500 fine being added to the £250,000 fine.

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

Is £7,500 below the threshold for the Small Claims Court when Mike tells them to swivel?

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on6:37 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Does anyone here consider themselves a finacial expert?

No? Well read this from “Financial Expert Ken Pattullo from Begbies Traynor” and you will.

http://www.football365.com/rangers/9741860/-

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:09 pm - Mar 3, 2015


I note Phil McG in his latest article saying King & Co have been so far unsuccessful in securing a credit line. Would they be able to raise revenue against future season ticket sales? 😀

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:26 pm - Mar 3, 2015


mcfc says:
March 3, 2015 at 5:28 pm
“alternative sources of external funding will be required.”

“You want some action? I’ll put your ass in traction” – The Tubes 1976 and Derek Llambias 2015

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

Dream Baby Dream — Suicide 1990 & Dave King 2015.

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on7:28 pm - Mar 3, 2015


@upthehoops I suspect Ticketus would do a bit more due diligence this time especially as King was a Director of the company that shafted them last time

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on7:40 pm - Mar 3, 2015


03 March 2015

Rangers International Football Club plc

“Shareholders should be aware that there are other conditions of drawdown which include a material and adverse change and/or significant, adverse event condition which could impact upon the willingness of SD to release the funds.”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Wonder what is meant by an “adverse event condition”?
Heres a few ideas
Andrew Dickson gets made acting Chairman and puts Llambias and Leech on gardening leave
Or
HMRC apply for a winding up order
Or
The Worthington claim to Ibrox is conceded
Or
The Surveyors report on essential repairs to Ibrox is released

Or (my favourite)
Ashley recalls his loans, a Prepack Liquidator is appointed and an Ashley (Sarver) bid is made for the assets

No doubt there are lots more out there

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on7:42 pm - Mar 3, 2015


mcfc says:
March 3, 2015 at 5:34 pm

Hey shareholders, how much will your shares be worth after L & L have exercised their “adverse event” clause.

Now that’s what I call 7,500 quids worth of influence – money well spent Mike

_________________________________________________________

*£7500 fine?

I mean we know that the SFA are spineless, powerless and inept, but what I don’t understand is, why – given they obviously feel the need to advertise this fact in such a public and extraverted manner – they don’t just go the whole hog, and pour custard down their trousers while they are about it?
honk honk.
honk honk.
Careful with that ladder fellas!
No Stewart. I do not wish to smell your lapel.
You’re doing it all wrong guys!
Is this any way to run a circus? I ask you!

*Isn’t that the same amount that Somers made on the shares he just sold?
About half a weeks wager for Ian Black?

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:43 pm - Mar 3, 2015


easyJambo says:
March 3, 2015 at 5:37 pm
…and there’s more 😀

03 March 2015

Rangers International Football Club plc

(“Rangers” the “Club” or the “Company”)

Extraordinary General Meeting Voting

“The Board of Rangers notes the Press Release from David King issued today…

There can be no guarantee of avoiding suspension…” [of the RIFC plc shares]
==============================================================================
Is that ‘no guarantee’ sentence not a wee bit pointless / nasty / actionable ?

If that statement had been issued by a ‘normal’ plc, [I know], then would that be interpreted as “the company is going down, you have been warned”, followed immediately by a massive share dump ?

Strange.

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on7:55 pm - Mar 3, 2015


upthehoops says:
March 3, 2015 at 7:09 pm

I note Phil McG in his latest article saying King & Co have been so far unsuccessful in securing a credit line. Would they be able to raise revenue against future season ticket sales? 😀

________________________________________________________

Good question.
I guess it would depend in part on whether such advance ticket sales would survive in the circumstances of an insolvency event?
If only there was some precedent to guide us here, dash it! 😈

oops….

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on8:03 pm - Mar 3, 2015


upthehoops says:
March 3, 2015 at 5:32 pm

easyJambo says:
March 3, 2015 at 5:24 pm

So it seems that the club will run out of money in less than two weeks.

Over to you Dave.
=================================

Perhaps Mr King may need to become closer to Mr Ashley than the celebrating hordes would prefer!

_________________________________________________

Are we about to be treated to a deft shift in balletic poise, from ‘kick-ass’ to ‘kiss-ass’ in the space of one small jete?

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on8:10 pm - Mar 3, 2015


ecobhoy says:
March 3, 2015 at 5:16 pm

Agree with most of that, except, I don’t believe Rangers MkII has any institutional investors, or at least none that would meet the commonly used definition.

I believe some individuals, for whatever reason, have instructed the institutions they invest with, to buy into Rangers. That’s a long way from an institution deciding to invest our pensions in an extended run of Carry On Up The Broomloan!

I can understand the fans pinning their hopes on the three bears, even Dave King to an extent, but, when I see Mather giving his proxy to the King faction, the old Spidey Sense starts tingling. Something is not right there, not right at all.

View Comment

Avatar

gerrybhoy67Posted on8:21 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Are Mike’s boys going to do a nightshift on the due diligence and decide clumpany is no longer viable and appoint administrator/Liquidator 1st thing tomorrow morning and leave the people bereft?That’s what you call a LANDSLIDE!

View Comment

Avatar

BrendaPosted on8:35 pm - Mar 3, 2015


If Mr Leach and Mr Lambias ‘go away’ as mr king & co would prefer ……. Does that mean that there will be n board members therefore would AIM not have to do something???? And because of their past with this particular company apart from the nod from the sfa does mr Murray and mr king not need a nod from somewhere else before they can take their seats so to speak …….. Sincere apologies if I am being really thick but as we all know normal rules don’t usually to the team from ibrox?? A simple explanation would be much appreciated 😕

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on8:42 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. But check photon torpedo settings first.

http://youtu.be/gQddgc1h_2I

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:51 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Auldheid says:
March 3, 2015 at 8:42 pm
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war…
===========================================
And as repeated by the scheming Kevin Spacey/Frank Underwood in ‘House of Cards’ Season 2, before it all kicked off, yet again in his favour !

I think Dave King’s coronation will precede an amusing episode like ‘Coronation Street’, IIRC.

And both soaps continue… 😉

View Comment

Avatar

iceman63Posted on8:55 pm - Mar 3, 2015


As far as I can see, Ashley has more or less laid it all out. The moment Llambias and Leach are removed from their executive positions, he calls in the loans.
Unless King has ten million in immediate readies and a source of two million a month until ST time, then voting for his resolution iseffectively effectively voting to kill the club.
And this supposes he can pass the legal and regulatory hurdles which are manifold.
Seems like madness to me. But then every single decision supported by Rangers fans in this entire fiasco has been madness.
I suspect Celtic fans will be delighted if King takes control. The only possible threat that this club could have ever posed was if it, like Cetic itself, had a billionaire owner intent in running it as a break even enterprise. With Loony tune RRM at the helm they can all sit back and enjoy the show.

View Comment

justshatered

justshateredPosted on9:09 pm - Mar 3, 2015


If Phil is correct and King and Co have failed to charm the city for cash again and Ashley’s lads know this, will they pull the plug?
As they are the current directors until the EGM could they call in the Administrator/Liquidator and claim the company is simply insolvent?
Now it could be that the draw down of the second tranche will lead to a re-negotiation of the merchandising deal possibly making the 25% permanent and securing future sponsorship for 3 or 4 years. This could hamstring the business in its current format.
With Ashley as an enemy I do not think any money will be raised from the city regardless of the fact that the company is a financial mad house. The city have already been scorched in this debacle.
That this company cannot get a credit line from any bank due to the largesse of everyone involved is no surprise. Banks are trying to get out of loss making businesses not into them.

The customer is king they say and that is true. Well the customers, and possibly even shareholders, have spoken and now the new guys need to put up. They have the keys and are loose in the Big Hoose. Good luck I think they’ll need it to keep the spoilt children happy while paying everyone else as well.
I think they are about to find out that, atop the marble staircase, there is a black hole into which money disappears with crushing regularity. Yet the fans will be happy …………. for a while. How long will the honeymoon last. It could be some time if the three bears and Dave King are willing to squander their own personal wealth.
Will they…………….. no one really knows however what is clear is that this is the last throw of the dice.

If this regime crashes, particularly after yet another share issue, there will be nothing to revert to. The fans will be well and truly scunnered and their money will also be gone. The fans have now, seemingly, got the ‘people’ in charge that they craved but if their trust has been abused again then I fear it may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It is bad enough being conned by conn men but to be conned by your own well that is something completely different.

Strap in ‘cos I think this is going to be a very bumpy ride!!

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:03 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Dave King claims he is on the verge of taking control of Rangers after Ibrox chief executive Derek Llambias admitted he had secured a “landslide victory”.

Rangers International Football Club plc

(“Rangers” the “Club” or the “Company”)

Extraordinary General Meeting Voting

The Board of Rangers notes the Press Release from David King issued today. Proxy voting closes tomorrow morning at 10am, and at the current time a significant number of shares have not yet voted; the outcome cannot therefore be determined with certainty. The position of the proxy voting will not be announced ahead of the meeting for regulatory reasons, and in any event shareholders have the right to revoke their proxy vote by attendance in person at the general meeting.

The Directors believe that they have at all times sought to act in the best interests of Rangers for the benefit of its shareholders as a whole and refute in the strongest possible terms any suggestion that this is not the case and in particular any suggestion that they have given their personal interests priority over those of the Company.
By remaining in post the directors wish to give the Company and possible incoming directors (should the Board change) the best possible chance of complying with the AIM rules and of avoiding the risk highlighted in the circular of 06 February 2015 of the Company’s shares being suspended. There can be no guarantee of avoiding suspension.

Did Derek Llambias admit to king he had secured a “landslide victory”.and if he did is this not breaking some rules

View Comment

helpmaboab

helpmaboabPosted on10:09 pm - Mar 3, 2015


The End-The Doors 1967 …and Mike Ashley 2015.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:33 pm - Mar 3, 2015


The EGM this week is an EGM of the PLC. The resolutions relate to directorships in the PLC only. At least I assume so. I haven’t checked them. If so, then the directorships in TRFC remain unaffected. At least for the moment. It may (depending upon what the Articles of Association of TRFC say) take an EGM of TRFC to remove the TRFC board. That would take a month. You can do a lot in a month. Its interesting that the Mr Easdale on the PLC board has resigned but the Mr Easdale on the TRFC board has not.

View Comment

Prohibby

ProhibbyPosted on10:53 pm - Mar 3, 2015


This detail from the BBC caught my eye:

Section 216 of the Insolvency Act prevents directors of a company that enters liquidation from becoming directors of a company with a similar name. There are exceptions, though, including if directors are being appointed to a company that has been using the name for more than 12 months, as is the case with Rangers International Football Club plc.
………..
Any informed opinion on this, please?

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on11:09 pm - Mar 3, 2015


The 12 month period for s216 relates to the 12 months prior to the liquidation of the oldco.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:12 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Prohibby says:
March 3, 2015 at 10:53 pm
This detail from the BBC caught my eye:

Section 216 of the Insolvency Act prevents directors of a company that enters liquidation from becoming directors of a company with a similar name. There are exceptions, though, including if directors are being appointed to a company that has been using the name for more than 12 months, as is the case with Rangers International Football Club plc.
………..
Any informed opinion on this, please?
====================================================================
Utter tosh I’m afraid:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/insolvency-restrictions-on-re-use-of-a-company-name

Third exception: Previous use of name by another company or business

The restriction on the re-use of a prohibited name does not apply to you if you are a director of another company that has used a prohibited name continuously for 12 months up to the date of the liquidation of the liquidated company. In these specific circumstances your use of a name would not be prohibited, even though the name was also used by the liquidated company. However, your company must have been actively trading during the whole of the 12 months up to the date of the liquidation of the liquidated company, and must have used the name during the whole of that period. If your company was dormant (not actively trading) during any part of the 12 months or used the name during only part of the period, then the restriction will apply and you will not be allowed to re-use the prohibited name, without the permission of the court.

“…that has used a prohibited name continuously for 12 months up to the date of the liquidation of the liquidated company.”

RIFC plc adopted its current moniker on 29th November 2012. This is one month AFTER Rangers entered liquidation.

None of the exceptions apply in the case of Mr King.

Could you point me to the BBC article, because this is very, very poor.

View Comment

Avatar

macfurglyPosted on11:35 pm - Mar 3, 2015


HirsutePursuit says:

March 3, 2015 at 11:12 pm

—————
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31721301
The BBC Sport page.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on11:41 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Cluster One says:
March 3, 2015 at 10:03 pm

Did Derek Llambias admit to king he had secured a “landslide victory”.and if he did is this not breaking some rules
=========================================================
I doubt very much that DL would have said any such thing, unless he was baiting a trap.

He may have intimated that the resolutions MAY secure a large majority, but until the meeting when the votes are actually cast the outcome still remains uncertain as proxies only count when cast at the meeting and can be revoked by a further proxy or by attendance and voting in person.
Someone glibly saying to DK, “aye I’ll back you”, is not the same as seeing that vote cast at the EGM.

DK does seem to be somewhat out of touch with the Companies Act and I do wonder if he appreciates the difference between a listed PLC and a private company. I assume that someone must be briefing him in private on these matters, as his public utterings are less than confidence inspiring.

View Comment

Prohibby

ProhibbyPosted on11:42 pm - Mar 3, 2015


Thanks to you H.P. and Campbellsmoney. I got the quote from the BBC News App on my IPad. It was under the Header: Rangers: Victory for King will only be First Step in rebuilding Job. It was authored by Richard Wilson 3 hours ago. Sorry, I can’t find any way of sending a link.

View Comment

Avatar

TrisidiumPosted on12:02 am - Mar 4, 2015


Can I echo Prohibby’s thanks to HP and campbellsmoney for their clarification.

It appears that Richard Wilson is, like many of his ilk, doing a cut’n’paste job on Level 5 wire content. I know that some people think he is a cut above the rest, but given Wilson’s certain knowledge of the obfuscation and misinformation that has surrounded this whole fiasco, it is a very unprofessional, basic, easily checked factual error to make.

Since Wilson had taken the trouble to quote the section number of the act, I foolishly inferred that he had actually read it. But he evidently has not read it at all, so my inference is that someone told him about it and offered a deliberately misleading interpretation, which he has blindly repeated.

I suspect that information as key as this would, to an objective, sceptical journalist, be the subject of at least a cursory check. Unless of course he has abandoned scepticism in his enthusiasm for King, or is part of the PR campaign himself. That would be blatant dishonesty.

I’m sure he is neither dishonest, nor a cheerleader for King – just not very good at his job on this evidence. The only thing he has abandoned is the art of journalism.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:12 am - Mar 4, 2015


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31721301

Whyte tried to remove him from the board, but King stayed in place until after administration, during which time he passed information on to the relevant authorities about events at Ibrox.

Now that is another strange statement from Richard Wilson. The SFA Judicial panel had this to say:

“…From May 2011 Mr David King was aware that he was being excluded from the governance of the company and he appears to have done little about it except repeat his demands to Mr Olverman and Mr Craig Whyte for information.

There was no information about any other steps he took as director when matters were plainly out of the control of the Board and information and accounts were kept secret from the Board.

The question might be “What could they do?”. The answer is “They could have made public the activities of Mr Craig Whyte of which they were aware or ought to have been aware”. Their fiduciary duties owed to the company might for example have led them to disclose to the PLUS Stock Exchange that no accounts were likely or that no AGM was likely to be held on account of the conduct of Mr Craig Whyte and that there was a complete breakdown of the corporate governance of Rangers FC.

These are matters which did not determine the liability of Rangers FC but which bore upon the question as to what extent it could, with merit, claim that it was powerless, and that the sole responsibility was that of Mr Craig Whyte.”

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:36 am - Mar 4, 2015


HirsutePursuit says:

March 4, 2015 at 12:12 am

He could have asked Craig Whyte what steps Rangers were taking to ensure that the wee tax bill was paid (if Carlsberg did irony.)

View Comment

melbournedee

melbournedeePosted on2:40 am - Mar 4, 2015


Following the decision to fine Mike Ashley £7,500 for his influence over Rangers, which included taking security over real property, the Chief Executive and Finance Director being his chosen men, 5 players on loan from NUFC and a 25% increase in his interest of the retail operations, surely Neil Rankine and Livingston should be able to settle their dispute with the SFA with a 50p piece.

Why is it that every rule in their rule book seems to be waiting for a logic bypass? They might as well toss the rule book away and just admit that they will make it up as they go along.That way, nobody can be surprised or disappointed when the next decision (fit and proper?) flies in the face of all reasonable expectations. There is no hope for an accountably run football regime in Scotland while the current incumbents are left in charge.

View Comment

Avatar

YerevanPosted on3:18 am - Mar 4, 2015


Just submitted an online complaint form to the BBC concerning the misleading and inaccurate article by Richard Wilson where he implies King is exempt from the Insolvency Act s216.

I also requested that the article be corrected.

Watch this space.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:34 am - Mar 4, 2015


We have joked in the past at the laughable ‘Scottish Press Awards’, and the incredible fact that Jingle Jangle Jackson is aiming for 4-in-a-row as ‘Sports News Writer of the Year’ in April. No really !

We recently watched the Oscars – which were preceded by the alternative ‘Razzies’ awards for worst categories. A light hearted p!ss-take of the film industry.

Could we do the same ?
‘Churnalist of the Year’ ?
We could vote on here, and the winner could be sent e.g. a TSFM mug, and the other short-listed ‘journalists’ informed at their near-miss.

A bit of fun, and reinforcement that the punters take everything the sports journalists produce with a big pinch of salt. Might have a positive outcome ?

God loves a trier ! 🙄

View Comment

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on6:58 am - Mar 4, 2015


HirsutePursuit says:
March 4, 2015 at 12:12 am

The question might be “What could they do?”. The answer is “They could have made public the activities of Mr Craig Whyte of which they were aware or ought to have been aware”. Their fiduciary duties owed to the company might for example have led them to disclose to the PLUS Stock Exchange that no accounts were likely or that no AGM was likely to be held on account of the conduct of Mr Craig Whyte and that there was a complete breakdown of the corporate governance of Rangers FC.

=================================================================================
HP…this was part of the overall options available to Mr King, which he appears to have chosen not to exercise.

In a similar vein to the previous scenario under David Murray, Messrs Johnston and Murray (Paul) chose to maintain their vow of “Omerta” and do nothing….!

Since both are members of ICAS, there are specific guidelines as to their obligations and duties as directors when they found themselves as directors under David Murray’s financial recklessness…but the status of their directorships appears to have blinded them as to these duties.

In my opinion.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:08 am - Mar 4, 2015


TSFM says:
March 4, 2015 at 12:02 am
Can I echo Prohibby’s thanks to HP and campbellsmoney for their clarification.

It appears that Richard Wilson is, like many of his ilk, doing a cut’n’paste job on Level 5 wire content. I know that some people think he is a cut above the rest, but given Wilson’s certain knowledge of the obfuscation and misinformation that has surrounded this whole fiasco, it is a very unprofessional, basic, easily checked factual error to make.
=============================================

I agree. It’s a pity because on a purely football level Wilson speaks well and impartially. He has been very complimentary to Celtic recently, and his match reporting on any game lacks the wee tinge of the agenda we always get with someone like Chick Young.

It is in his reporting of the governance at Ibrox where Wilson is clearly letting himself down. The BBC needs to get its act together. It has a duty to be factually correct, and not to allow itself to be used as a PR organ for a particular faction, which it appears has happened in this case.

View Comment

Avatar

EKBhoyPosted on7:25 am - Mar 4, 2015


Based on the £7.5K fine to big Mike and the ability of the SFA once again to turn logic on its head ; it is a racing certainty that big Dave will not be told to Foxtrot Oscar , just need the self certification on FPP signed by a minion ….

…. Little wonder, sensible businesses give Scottish football a wide berth.

Still with King in charge, it will be hillarious , moonbeams a plenty.

I’d expect the Mullett to have a very sturdy Rangers mob kicking lumps out of the opposition , surrounding the ref , keep their shape sort of stuff , close the curtains stuff

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on8:15 am - Mar 4, 2015


Phil’s blog with some relevant questions surrounding King’s plans got me wondering. To be honest, you’d think that some of these RRM are financial pragmatists and may have a line of communication and cooperation open with the current board.

To keep punters’ cash flowing in, though, I suppose they’d have to be discreet about any contacts. If there are no behind-the-scenes nods and winks, it looks like a big bill will be arriving in the post on Monday morning. Crivvins.

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/questions-that-will-not-be-asked/#more-5966

View Comment

Comments are closed.