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

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on7:41 pm - Mar 4, 2015


scapaflow says:
March 4, 2015 at 7:23 pm

‘…Paul Murray to be interim chair’.

_________

Does that suggest King is not content to be a director, or, indeed, to nominate (not that I think he’d get away with that) a director in his stead should the various authorative bodies do their job properly?

Assuming King actually intends putting some of his own money in, would he still do so if his ambition to be Mr Rangers is thwarted, or delayed?

Questions both rhetorical, of course 🙄

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:45 pm - Mar 4, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
March 4, 2015 at 7:26 pm
Phil MacGiollaBhain retweeted
Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug · 6 mins 6 minutes ago

Dave King says he will delay becoming director of #Rangers until due diligence is carried out by regulators. Paul Murray to be interim chair
==========================================================
Is the due diligence on King himself, and/or RIFC ?

Either way, he could/should have known that this could have been a possible outcome some time ago.

So, is King using this ‘exclusion period’ to hedge his bets ?

Could it be a way to get access to the detail at Ibrox – via Paul Murray – before making any further personal commitment, and before joining the board ?

Or before making his excuses, and then jetting back to SA ?

Getting confused again ! 😕

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on7:51 pm - Mar 4, 2015


AmFearLiathMòr says:
March 4, 2015 at 5:44 pm
————

Let’s hope someone is indeed brave enough to set it up. Could start on a shoestring with limited coverage. As you say, one modest gantry camera can produce good results if the after-editing and production is decent. And there could be cooperation with clubs that already have in-house cameras in situ.

Like yourself, I’m interested in the entirety of Scottish football. I listen to the the Terrace Podcast which, although, a few guys doing it in their spare time, is a great round up of non-top tier stuff – and doesn’t make the rest all about a few select teams. There are lots of engaged fans already doing broadcast stuff who could be brought on board a project like this. Last thing you’d want is the same old same old.

That said, BBC Alba stuff I’ve seen is done very well, modest as it is. Doesn’t need to be the absurd multi-pundit line up BT Sport uses.

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on8:02 pm - Mar 4, 2015


“Chris McLaughlin ‏@BBCchrismclaug 5 mins5 minutes ago
Dave King says he will delay becoming director of #Rangers until due diligence is carried out by regulators. Paul Murray to be interim chair
===============================================

So, obviously this is part of a well thought out plan and in no way a panic reaction to difficult questions originating from the internet bampots and at some point to be asked by the SMSM who just can’t ignore it any longer…

And for the next one, as was said by another Walter (Mondale) to Gary Hart how about : “Where’s the beef?”.

Well DK, where’s the money?

SMSM – so, how about switching from lamb to beef and see where that takes you? Where’s the beef, guys?

Scottish Football watches agog as RIFC/TRFC and their assorted hangers-on brings our game into further disrepute.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on8:08 pm - Mar 4, 2015


King’s full statement

Paul Murray will be Rangers chairman until I’m cleared as fit and proper insists Dave King

THE club owner-in-waiting has tonight released a conciliatory statement that accepts he must be scrutinised by financial and football rulers.

DAVE KING has tonight revealed Paul Murray will be named on Friday as Rangers chairman while the Stock Market and SFA bosses rule on whether he is fit and proper.

The Castlemilk-born businessman released a conciliatory statement that accepted he should be scrutinised by financial and Hampden rulers.

King, who was a director of oldco that suffered an insolvency event and was found guilty of 41 tax charges, once again thanked the fans for helping him secure the club he has always supported.

He also insisted he is ready to “rebuild relationships” with the rest of Scottish football, many of which were damaged by the likes of Charles Green.

King, who will be successful in blitzing the current board at the egm in 48 hours, said: “An important issue that was repeatedly (and correctly) raised by the previous board is the need for the regulators to be given time to complete the necessary due diligence on myself – given my intended role as chairman of the company.

“However, engagement with the regulators can only commence at the specific request of the company and that process can only be initiated on conclusion of the general meeting.

“It is important that I lead by example following my commitment to transparency and accountability.

“I will therefore delay acceptance of my appointment as director until the regulators have completed due process.

“Paul Murray has agreed to act as interim chairman of the company until this process has been concluded. Additional board appointments will be announced in the near future.

“I again thank fans and shareholders for their support in bringing about the much-needed change that allows our club to progress to a better and more recognisable future.

“I stressed in previous communications that the club must operate in a transparent manner with the appropriate standard of governance and accountability.

“I also committed that the club will engage with fan groups to facilitate the continuation of the recent momentum in share purchases so that fans can become a significant voice in the future running of the club. I repeat that commitment.

“The club must also take this opportunity to rebuild relationships with the football community in Scotland. This will be to the benefit of the club and Scottish football as a whole.”

King again took a verbal swipe at the existing board’s Nomad WH Ireland, who this afternoon stepped down.

He added: “I confirmed my intention to delay taking up my directorship to WH Ireland on Monday.

“Based on that decision WH Ireland agreed to remain in place to effect a proper handover to the incoming Nomad. I coordinated a call between both parties for this afternoon to effect the initial introduction.

“However, before this conversation could take place and contrary to our agreement WH Ireland resigned without prior notification to me. That lack of professionalism has characterised WH Ireland’s role as Nomad and reinforces why there was a complete lack of governance and transparency under its watch.

“Consequently, to WH Ireland’s and the board’s knowledge, it is blatantly dishonest to suggest that my imminent appointment to the board was of concern to them.

“Fortunately, the general meeting is not affected by the suspension. The new board will proceed to ensure that the listing is resumed as soon as possible.

“I ask that all who attend the general meeting on Friday do so with the calmness and the dignity that is befitting of this great club.”

View Comment

Avatar

parttimearabPosted on8:09 pm - Mar 4, 2015


scapaflow says:
March 4, 2015 at 7:23 pm

“Chris McLaughlin ‏@BBCchrismclaug 5 mins5 minutes ago
Dave King says he will delay becoming director of #Rangers until due diligence is carried out by regulators.
=================================================
Could it be that DK has found a Nomad to take the gig….on the condition that he waits for financial/footballing regulatory approval ❓

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on8:10 pm - Mar 4, 2015


mcfc says:
March 4, 2015 at 6:35 pm

AIM Rules for Nominated Advisers – May 2014

But why is King so shy about naming his new Nomad – the most obvious way to kill the story dead until Friday. The most probable reason, to me, is because King hasn’t seen the WH Ireland report to AIM – why would he be privy to that – and hence his new Nomad has not seen it either – once they have they hey may do a runner. Who’s your Nomad Mr King?

______________________________________________________

I imagine something like the following scenario:
King has made approaches to Business development function at a possible NOMAD.
King can therefore spin it that he has a NOMAD lined up.

King doubtless wants to say ‘My Nomad will be X, wheels are in motion etc.’ and issue a definitive statement.

Whereas the Nomad X is trying – on the basis of minimal informtion at present – to weigh up the balance of likelihood between landing a lucrative contract, versus being struck off for professional negligence, and the reputational damage incurred by associating with a bunch of blatant chancers.

Trying to work out which side of the ‘rampaging fraud’ demracation line their conduct will eventually land up being judged, when it all goes pear shaped is something that they do not yet have sufficient information on which to base a judgement.

This is the same game that the RIFC auditors have had to play over the past couple of years at company accounts time, and a service for which additional professional fees will no doubt have been levied.

So my guess is Nomad X is stringing King along and keeping him on the hook, just in case a way can be found through to bring the deal home.

But they probably will want – and be able to insist upon- anonymity pro tem – so that in the event that duedil by their technical guys precipitates a ‘situational reappraisal’ and hasty exit along the hillbound expressway on their part, such a move could readily be effected, without leaving any egg on their face.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:12 pm - Mar 4, 2015


This feels like deja vu, all over again… 🙄

Cast our minds back to Nov/Dec 2011, when we all knew that RFC was about to hit the buffers, and yet the SMSM was desperately looking the other way, with their collective fingers in their ears. It was inevitable that massive u-turns were in the offing.

Likewise with King.
Most Bampots don’t believe he will put his own money into TRFC to compete with CFC.
It’s TRFC’s turn to hit the buffers in terms of either an insolvency event and/or massively reduced expectations for the bears.

Mega-sized bag of popcorn on standby…

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on8:25 pm - Mar 4, 2015


parttimearab says:
March 4, 2015 at 8:09 pm

scapaflow says:
March 4, 2015 at 7:23 pm

“Chris McLaughlin ‏@BBCchrismclaug 5 mins5 minutes ago
Dave King says he will delay becoming director of #Rangers until due diligence is carried out by regulators.
=================================================
Could it be that DK has found a Nomad to take the gig….on the condition that he waits for financial/footballing regulatory approval ❓

__________________________________________________

More likely, it signals that DK was not expecting the share suspension.
he is trying to remove one of the immediate obstacles i.e. himself!
And frantically recalculating his position:
The narrative is after the coronation, bears buy shares!

“Who will buy my sweet blue shares!,
Any knives to grind…. etc.”

Unfortunately, Mash plays by different rules to RRM.

View Comment

Avatar

parttimearabPosted on8:29 pm - Mar 4, 2015


DK statement out….very broad hint that Nomad lined up…peace and love to other clubs (I paraphrase a little here)…and…wait for it….dignity.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/paul-murray-rangers-chairman-until-5274035?

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:31 pm - Mar 4, 2015


easyJambo says:
March 4, 2015 at 8:08 pm
King’s full statement

“…It is important that I lead by example following my commitment to transparency and accountability.

“I will therefore delay acceptance of my appointment as director until the regulators have completed due process…”
=======================================
King is taking the p!ss.

This meekly accepted – and unquantified delay – smells a bit too fishy/convenient…or am I just being too cynical about Mr.King ?

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on8:34 pm - Mar 4, 2015


Just to reiterate the possible exceptions to s.216 of the Insolvency Act:

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

Exceptions There are three exceptions to the restrictions on the re-use of a prohibited name.

First exception: Sale of business
You may use the name if you give the required notice when the whole, or substantially the whole, of the business of the company in insolvent liquidation is sold by the liquidator and you intend to act with regards to that business in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited to you. If this happens, or is intended to happen under arrangements made by an administrator, administrative receiver or supervisor of a voluntary arrangement of the insolvent company, you must use a prescribed form (form 4.73) to publish a Notice in the Gazette and also send it to all creditors known to you or whose names and addresses could be obtained by you by making reasonable enquiries. The prescribed form 4.73 can be downloaded through the following internet link: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1974/schedule/made. The Notice may be published and given before the completion of the sale arrangements but must be published and given no later than 28 days after completion.

Second exception: Immediate application to court for permission
You can get permission from the court to use the prohibited name. You should apply to the court within 7 business days of the liquidation. If you apply within that time, you may carry on using the prohibited name for 6 weeks from the date of the liquidation or until the court decides whether to grant you permission, whichever is the earlier. It is important that your application is heard within the 6 weeks; otherwise the restriction will again apply to you. The court can grant permission at any time during the 5 years that a name is prohibited, but it cannot retrospectively authorise use of a prohibited name for any time during the period before it gave permission. If a company has gone into compulsory liquidation (i.e. your company in liquidation was wound up in the court and was dealt with by the official receiver), you should apply for permission to the same court that made the winding-up order. If a company has gone into voluntary liquidation, you should apply for permission to any county court in the area where the company traded, as long as that county court has the jurisdiction to wind up companies. If you apply to the court for permission to use a prohibited name, you should send a copy of your application to The Intelligence Hub, Investigations & Enforcement Services, The Insolvency Service, 3rd Floor Cannon House, 18 Priory Queensway, Birmingham, B4 6FD. Email: intelligence.live@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk. This is because the court may call on the liquidator, or any former liquidator, to report the circumstances in which the liquidated company became insolvent, and the extent (if any) of your responsibility for the insolvency.

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.

Penalties If you contravene section 216 of the Act, you are committing a criminal offence. You may be prosecuted by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills and could go to prison if you are convicted. In addition, under section 217 of the Act you could be made personally liable for the debts incurred during the time that you were involved in managing a business using a prohibited name, even if it was a limited company. This could happen whether you are prosecuted under section 216 or not.
Person who helps someone else contravene section 216 Even if you are not contravening Section 216 of the Act, you will be personally liable for the debts of a company if you agree to be registered as a company director and/or are involved in managing a business and you act on instructions from someone you know is contravening section 216. This is because you are helping someone to commit a criminal offence by contravening section 216.

None of these exceptions apply to Mr King. Specifically, The Third Exception – which has been used by Richard Wilson yesterday and @Propa_Gander on Twitter today – cannot apply.

The date of the old club’s Liquidation is 31/10/2012, RIFC was incorporated (as Rangers Football plc) on 16/11/2012. It became Rangers International Football Club plc on 27/11/2012.

For the Third exception to apply, RIFC would have to have been incorporated and trading using the Rangers name since October 2011. It is a matter of record that it was not.

Mr King – without the permission of the court – cannot be involved in the management of the new club until November 2017 without committing a criminal offence. Such criminality carries with it personal liability for debts incurred by the new club from the time his involvement begins.

I suppose today’s announcement (that he will not take a place on the board until “regulatory matters” have been cleared up) should be taken as an acknowledgement that he understands the risks he faces through an association with the current “Rangers”.

I am sure he will also understand the position is no different if he acts as a shadow director of the new club.

Given:
1. Mr King’s recent criminal convictions in South Africa
2. The SFA Judicial Panel investigation which slated the former directors – including Mr King

– it would appear to me, highly unlikely that any court would approve Mr King’s application to disapply s.216

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on8:36 pm - Mar 4, 2015


“I also committed that the club will engage with fan groups to facilitate the continuation of the recent momentum in share purchases so that fans can become a significant voice in the future running of the club. I repeat that commitment.”

Summary:
Dearest Bears:
Now that I know the nomad won’t sign off on me unless I have been cleared by the regulators, I agree that I won’t take up post as chairman unless/until I am cleared by creditors.

And here – to confound my cynics – is my sound financial plan for the club going forward: gimme all your money! (rattle tins)

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on8:40 pm - Mar 4, 2015


““However, before this conversation could take place and contrary to our agreement WH Ireland resigned without prior notification to me. That lack of professionalism has characterised WH Ireland’s role as Nomad and reinforces why there was a complete lack of governance and transparency under its watch.

“Consequently, to WH Ireland’s and the board’s knowledge, it is blatantly dishonest to suggest that my imminent appointment to the board was of concern to them.””

Not sure W H Ireland will be able to let that “fly kick” stand unchallenged.

If Mr King is starting as he means to go on, the SFA is going to need a judicial panel pool just for him. We should pity Paul Murray during his period as interim chair, with the Man who Would Be King, continually mouthing off from the cheap seats, its sure going to be entertaining

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on8:43 pm - Mar 4, 2015


StevieBC says:
March 4, 2015 at 8:31 pm

…or am I just being too cynical about Mr.King ?

________________________________________

😕 is that even possible? You did read the SA Tax authorities stuff, no?
Anyhow, if you are, he really hasn’t left you alot of room there, and you did well to find it at all.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:52 pm - Mar 4, 2015


I’m thinking, is it not about time for another totally baffling, unknown ‘interested party’ to appear stage left ?!

Another one of those: what the ? moments.

We’ve had the Interpol wanted guy, the Indian cricket dodgy guy, the Phoenix guy, so shirley it’s about time we had maybe a Russian or Japanese gangster having a sniff around Ibrox …?

At least it’s never boring at Ibrox – apart from the football that is… 🙄

View Comment

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on8:57 pm - Mar 4, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
March 4, 2015 at 6:49 pm
ecobhoy says:
March 4, 2015 at 5:52 pm

mcfc says:
March 4, 2015 at 4:51 pm

___________________________________________________

Delisting does not affect the ownership of shares, but it effects their liquidity and – more often than not – their value.

The AIM / Stock exchange is a market.
Access gives you the right to trade shares:
=====================================================================
Resin_lab_dog…may I repeat the question I asked of Easy Jambo some many months ago:

Where were you guys when I was studying for my CA finals…?

Based on your info and incisive posts, not to mention the other contributors to this glorious blog, I would have won the Institute’s Gold Medal (I think!)… 😀

Many thanks for your contributions!

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on9:09 pm - Mar 4, 2015


Over in the Bear’s Den – and this is the supposedly more cerebral ‘Boardroom and Financial’ section – they’re not even concerned/surprised at King’s latest statement. No one questioning whether or not he will get approval, or even challenging the fact that up until today he has been shouting that it won’t be a problem. No the only thing that matters in his statement is the comment that “he is ready to “rebuild relationships” with the rest of Scottish football, many of which were damaged by the likes of Charles Green.”

Most – and I mean almost every single – post suggests he doesn’t do this! (I’ll politely leave you to guess – or look in to see – how such advice is worded.

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on9:14 pm - Mar 4, 2015


essexbeancounter says:
March 4, 2015 at 8:57 pm
____________________________________

Very magnanamous and very admirable of you EB. I agree! They are all brilliant.

View Comment

Avatar

macfurglyPosted on9:54 pm - Mar 4, 2015


HirsutePursuit says:

March 4, 2015 at 8:34 pm
———-
I notice the piece by Richard Wilson is still on the site.
Given that the briefing he appears to have repeated, by your reasoning and mine I think, could be interpreted as a deception with implications of intended criminal behaviour, and with a share vote imminent to which this matter pertains, would the BBC have felt the need to have it “legalled” before publication? Would they be safe because they faithfully reported what they were told?

View Comment

senior

seniorPosted on10:00 pm - Mar 4, 2015


““However, before this conversation could take place and contrary to our agreement WH Ireland resigned without prior notification to me. That lack of professionalism has characterised WH Ireland’s role as Nomad and reinforces why there was a complete lack of governance and transparency under its watch.

“Consequently, to WH Ireland’s and the board’s knowledge, it is blatantly dishonest to suggest that my imminent appointment to the board was of concern to them.””

Not sure W H Ireland will be able to let that “fly kick” stand unchallenged.

————————————

The above assertion may well do for King. Surely WH IRELAND must respond.
To accuse a Nomad of professional misconduct is a very serious issue and cannot be allowed to stand, otherwise silence will be construed as guilt. To cap it all the accuser has a somewhat chequered if not criminal past – what a neck.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:10 pm - Mar 4, 2015


So Mr King will not after all take up a directorship which if it had been taken up by him now would have been a criminal offence. Can’t say I am surprised at that.

But the prohibition in s216 is not about directorships. It is a prohibition on being involved in the promotion, formation or management of a company with a prohibited name.

So no pulling strings behind the scenes now.

I opted not to make any feeble joke about “promotion” perhaps not being likely this season anyway for a company with a prohibited name.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:22 pm - Mar 4, 2015


macfurgly says:
March 4, 2015 at 9:54 pm
HirsutePursuit says:

March 4, 2015 at 8:34 pm
———-
I notice the piece by Richard Wilson is still on the site.
Given that the briefing he appears to have repeated, by your reasoning and mine I think, could be interpreted as a deception with implications of intended criminal behaviour, and with a share vote imminent to which this matter pertains, would the BBC have felt the need to have it “legalled” before publication? Would they be safe because they faithfully reported what they were told?

5 0 Rate This
===========================================================
The report does not offer any insight into how these “facts” have been ascertained; however, I would assume – since it is so plainly wrong – that the author has not sought legal opinion on the matter.

I would not use the term “deception” because that would mean I had knowledge that Mr Wilson was working to some nefarious agenda and had a purposeful intention to mislead. I have no such knowledge. All that I can do is opine that the information he has given in this particular article is incorrect.

View Comment

Avatar

dedeideoprofundisPosted on10:24 pm - Mar 4, 2015


Here’s a likely Nomad

http://www.cartoonists.co.uk/beaupeep/images/nomadstrip.gif

View Comment

Avatar

jimmciPosted on10:28 pm - Mar 4, 2015


You could almost begin to admire King for his sheer brass neck.
It appears everyone in this pathetic farrago behaves in unprofessional and unscrupulous ways – well all except the RRM and the glib one himself.

1) Somers for not resigning when he should have – 6 March
2) WHI for breaching their agreement not to resign to order
3) Then the horrible Llambias and Leach..imagine not resigning until their contract entitlement was not secured if they were pushed. Dreadful, undignified behaviour.

True RRM like McCoist,McDowell do so but without criticism from the SMSM.

Dignity and decorum? Dear Lord, King, in his latest utterances is taking even Rangers arrogance to a new level. I imagine tomorrow’s papers will be queuing up to tell us how his offering to delay taking over the chair at the big Hoose tells us exactly why he is so fit and proper.

Bring it on, I say. The Rangers fans really need to be careful what they wish for but , from my seat,it looks like they are just about to receive exactly what they deserve.

View Comment

Avatar

sumproductPosted on10:43 pm - Mar 4, 2015


A story from back in 2013 has always puzzled me. What did Rangers then chief executive Craig Mather and finance director Brian Stockbridge discuss at their meeting with King in South Africa in October 2013? Both Mather and Stockbridge were there representing the same shareholders who are now apparently backing Ashley – the offshore Beaufort Consortium who Green was still representing in a recent interview from his hospital bed.
Isn’t it odd King was the only oldco board member to remain on the board during Whyte’s tenure, to then be afforded meetings with Whyte’s own appointed administrators during the admin process (and if memory serves King called publicly for the CVA to be rejected which ultimately led to liquidation) and he then managed to retain relations with Green and his crew, who apparently duped Whyte to buy the assets.
When you look back on this long saga, doesn’t this board battle look in many respects like a well orchestrated PR exercise? Control assess, control the message. I wonder if PR crisis management experts could concoct such a thing so it doesn’t look like an inside job.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24434323

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on10:43 pm - Mar 4, 2015


nawlite says:
March 4, 2015 at 9:09 pm

You may have hit upon the most dangerous of King’s many miscalculations. He seems not to grasp that the old shibboleths like appeals for Dignity, simply won’t work any more.

Charles Green let the rangers ultras out of the box, and strengthened them by feeding them a seductive, dangerous mythology, of a club brought down by external enemies, a mythology the ultras cherish.

To make matters worse, the press and PR types have created wildly unrealistic expectations within the fan base. Add to the mix the inconvenient truth that at least half of the ultras don’t much like King or Murray, and you have a fairly combustible situation, which I don’t think King understands, (I’m not sure the three bears do either).

Scottish Football needs a tough SFA more than ever, unfortunately we have the SFA we have, heaven help us all.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:57 pm - Mar 4, 2015


jimmci says:
March 4, 2015 at 10:28 pm

In relaton to King’s brass neck you forgot to add “rebuild relationships” with the rest of Scottish football, many of which were damaged by the likes of Charles Green.

That sentence should have continued ….. and some of our fans who have boycotted other clubs at the drop of a hat, hounded everybody from Chairmen to poor programme writers & tannoy volunteers while still insisting they like being up to their knees in others blood.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on11:04 pm - Mar 4, 2015


Someone quoted Amery, quoting Cromwell the other day in relation to the outgoing(?) RIFC board.

Winston Churchill described the Professional Game Board of the SFA to a Tee

“I remember when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum’s Circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit on the programme which I most desired to see was the one described as “The Boneless Wonder”. My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralising and revolting for my youthful eye and I have waited fifty years, to see the The Boneless Wonder sitting on the Treasury Bench.”

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on11:12 pm - Mar 4, 2015


Campbellsmoney says:
March 4, 2015 at 10:10 pm

But the prohibition in s216 is not about directorships. It is a prohibition on being involved in the promotion, formation or management of a company with a prohibited name.
———————————————————
I may have missed this but has anyone ever stated that the company has a prohibited name. It may be, of course, that this can only be done on a case by case basis.

It would also be nice to know if anyone has any case law references on decisions as to what is or isn’t a ‘prohibited name’.

I also might have missed this but is TRFCL also regarded as a ‘prohibited name’?

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on11:16 pm - Mar 4, 2015


Eco

Case study which is partly on point

https://www.purnells.co.uk/limited-company/creditors-voluntary-liquidations/phoenix-companies/case-study-bonus-breaks-limited.html

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on11:17 pm - Mar 4, 2015


Evening all. Not long back from a chilly Celtic Park where St Johnstone did a lot right in the 2nd half and got the 3 points. Fair play to them and a wonder strike goal to boot.

Just trying to get my head round all the other stuff. I’ll leave it to our Accountants and Lawyers. I certainly won’t be listening to any of the SMSM hacks who seem to be choking on freshly cooked lamb tonight.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on11:29 pm - Mar 4, 2015


If prohibited names your thing, here’s the Act. Best of luck.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/legis/num_act/2006/ukpga_20060046_en_1.html&query=prohibited+and+names&method=boolean#disp4

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:41 am - Mar 5, 2015


RIFC plc share-trading suspended I just see on BBC sport.
So Dave will let Paul act as chairman until the SFA and AIM clear him as f&p.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on12:50 am - Mar 5, 2015


If I had a hat on, I would take it off as a “chapeau” gesture to DK.

To totally f**k the Newco in revenge for losing his money in the (S)DM Oldco scam is top quality. The walking away announcement being made even before being in a position to have the option of walking away is a real masterstroke, and worthy of a sequel to The Sting.

I had MA as the puppetmaster, but DK had us all fooled with his facade of Rangersness, when all he had in mind was to bring the whole charade to an end. :irony:

View Comment

Avatar

The Exiled CeltPosted on6:05 am - Mar 5, 2015


The Scottish football world is with each passing day becoming more like WWF or WWE or whatever the global Mick McManus industry is called nowadays….

For the avoidance of doubt, Dave King has never ever been away – on Feb 14 when CW put the club into administration, he flew in to meet with Ally and the administrators

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9099276/Rangers-director-Dave-King-makes-Ibrox-visit-as-Ally-McCoist-talks-to-administrators.html

In June when the newco was started in he comes again

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/106688-rangers-crisis-dave-king-flies-into-glasgow-to-hold-talks-over-newco-club/

He has claimed CW promised him first dibs on the shares in the old co….

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/18137913

He has also asked to have the old club cv rejected……

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/18360427

He has never been far away…..the only Murray man who survived the Whyte era……and according to one of our late RTC posters Corsica had said there was a meeting with CG, CW, Ellis and DK in Zurich…..you know all this is bluff and bluster going on..

Much like the WWF fallouts and rematches and nonsense…..

Being a real Rangers man, DK has even threatened to sue SDM for his loss of 20 million…….

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/299994-rangers-director-plans-to-sue-former-owner-sir-david-murray-for-20m/

This has all been farcical – playing to the gallery with the Bears being played like a fiddle…..

Now we will have the hero returning – who has never been away – and the gates/STs (which are just a few weeks away from being launched) will now be taken up again in numbers – now the RST, Rangers First and SoS have shown they can raise money, they will be asked to help raise money to “restore” Ibrox and the great institution etc…..

All while CG enjoys his monthly paystubs….while MASH and his SD folks get their share…..

DK won’t put any money in – neither will Paul Murray – in fact no one is really sure DK lost 20 million in the first place……

But thanks to Neil Doncaster’s biblical analogy of a club that will arise form the dead and be given ever lasting life – unless its Gretna or Third Lanark of course – and Regan’s armageddon speeches, we are being told we really need to have a club in blue play at Ibrox or else its all a waste of time.

Next I wonder if the “losses” at Ibrox may be paid for by the selling off of Hampden and the internationals/finals all held at Ibrox with the odd one give to others just to placate them…..

Folks….if its not obvious by now, it never will be – we are ALL being played like fiddles by a bunch of spivs, spineless administrators and lazy journalists……

Scottish Football needs to concentrate on establishing football talent at grass roots and leave the circus acts and PR nonsense to FIFA

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on6:58 am - Mar 5, 2015


Just caught up with two pieces in The Herald, one by Alan Burrows of Motherwell and the other by Neil D. While the Doncaster piece was an exercise in stating the obvious (he really is out of his depth, isn’t he?) the Burrows piece was the sort of thing you’d actually expect from the SPFL top cat.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/sport/football/state-of-scottish-football-part-iii.119928972

Oddly enough, Burrows does mention ‘what happened to Rangers and the downturn it brought’. I suppose you can interpret that as you will. But on the whole a very decent piece.

Oh well, soon statement o’clock. Seemed to be a record number yesterday.

View Comment

Tartanwulver

TartanwulverPosted on7:00 am - Mar 5, 2015


wottpi says:
March 4, 2015 at 10:57 pm

In relaton to King’s brass neck you forgot to add “rebuild relationships” with the rest of Scottish football…
——————————
To be fair to King, he said nothing about rebuilding ‘good’ relationships

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on7:07 am - Mar 5, 2015


For those of you who have been following the Shareprophets revelations about an alleged Worthington fraud, it took an interesting twist yesterday.

http://www.shareprophets.com/views/10920/worthington-s-aiden-earley-gains-interim-injunction-v-tom-winnifrith-fraudster-bitchez-to-be-seen-in-court-11-march

Worthington’s Aiden Earley gains interim injunction v Tom Winnifrith: Fraudster Bitchez to be seen in court 11 March

Aiden Earley, the shadow director of the fraud Worthington (WRN) – who borrowed £375,000 – from the company as soon as he gained control, using money borrowed from convicted felon Kevin Sykes, today obtained an interim injunction against me.

That means that I cannot publish any more emails from Earley – other than the ones he sent me last week trying to work out when I was back in the UK as I could not be served when in Greece, under the guise of saying that he was praying for my soul – and indeed when formerly served – tomorrow I guess – I shall have 48 hours to remove those I have published from the internet and to destroy any copies I may have.

I am being asked to hand over any emails or documents that I have.

I shall comply with that order from that court order. If is lifted on 11th March then if I can obtain new copies of those emails and documents I shall republish as it is in the public interest.

On 11th March I shall be in Court fighting this injunction on the basis that I have obtained nothing illegally – I have not – and what I have published is in the public interest. I will not under any circumstance reveal my source or sources. I am being asked to reveal who I have sent the documents and emails to. As it happens that will be no-one other than the FCA and SFO.

I am free to comment on the fraud Worthington and shall do so and I am not backing down. See you in Court bitchez!

Why is it relevant? Some of the material relates to the purchase of Rangers by Whyte and possibly the charges faced by Whyte, Withey and the three Duffers. Worthington is also the other party in the contingent liability in the TRFC accounts.

One to watch over the next week or so.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:13 am - Mar 5, 2015


Reading around Twitter this morning even some of the less rabid media people are writing in a manner suggesting one thing. That is that they, and Dave King, both know the SFA won’t stand in his way. It seems clear to me they will have the charade of ‘questioning’ King, while knowing they are going to approve him anyway. I would not be at all surprised, given the SFA and their history of turning a blind eye and deaf ears to so many wrongs things associated with Ibrox in the past, all to the benefit of Rangers being successful.

The adulation being given to King, Murray, and Gilligan smacks of something to me. I won’t risk my post being removed by saying what it is.

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on7:34 am - Mar 5, 2015


Always impressed by the quality if the discussion here.

Campbellsmoney says:
March 4, 2015 at 10:10 pm
So Mr King will not after all take up a directorship which if it had been taken up by him now would have been a criminal offence. Can’t say I am surprised at that.

But the prohibition in s216 is not about directorships. It is a prohibition on being involved in the promotion, formation or management of a company with a prohibited name.

So no pulling strings behind the scenes now.
———————————————
Would Mr King be committing an offence by providing financial suport to the company?

If so, perhaps that possibility is recognised by the current board. If Mr King is ruled out as a possible source of funding in the short to medium term then where does the funding that the company so desperately needs come from?

I suspect that MA’s lawyers have been over everything and that the Achilles heel of Kings being involved in the company going forward is well understood.

Now that King has ruled himself out as a director until due diligence has been concluded – should the board now movge to strike that particular resolution off of the EGM? I would have thought that the board should conduct that assessment and that should include SFA and AIM tests given the nature of the company.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on8:45 am - Mar 5, 2015


Long Time Lurker says:
March 5, 2015 at 7:34 am

Well indeed.
Putting a caveat on King being a director and installing Murray as acting Chair (why not Gilligan) is pretty much like ‘The Vow’ being introduced to the Independence debate after folks had already stuck in their postal votes.

The way things stand with the requisitioners the outcome tomorrow is not what the shareholders actually voted on.

Just yet another manky little deal in this whole sordid saga.

View Comment

Avatar

TamBooze82Posted on9:01 am - Mar 5, 2015


Gentlemen if Dave King needs due dilligence to be a director does Paul Murray not need the exact same thing ?

View Comment

Avatar

The Exiled CeltPosted on9:03 am - Mar 5, 2015


Tigertim‏@asmallteaser
How many shares does the Chairman elect, Paul Murray, own in Rangers? @STVGrant

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 32m32 minutes ago
@asmallteaser None I am aware of.

Tigertim ‏@asmallteaser 28m28 minutes ago
@STVGrant a true Rangers man then!!

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on9:14 am - Mar 5, 2015


No need to panic. Matt Lindsay at the ET is the voice of reassurance with a link to an article about last share suspension affecting zibrox — a month before admin. Everything will be fine this time, too.

@MattLindsayHT: Remember the last time Rangers had their shares suspended by the Stock Exchange? Lot of fuss about nothing.
http://t.co/QohqbhVWwv

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:15 am - Mar 5, 2015


Long Time Lurker says:
March 5, 2015 at 7:34 am

Would Mr King be committing an offence by providing financial suport to the company?
_________________________

Not only that, but would he be committing an offence if he was involved in raising money for the company? It seems to me that the only thing King is bringing to the party, in lieu of any of his succulent millions, is his undoubted ability to find mugs to fund his dubious ventures, that and his Rangersness, of course.

My limited understanding of the relevant section of the Insolvency Act is that he can’t get involved in anything more than the owning of his shares, until, and if, he is passed by the courts to take up office.

He certainly made life difficult for the South African courts with his delaying tactics there, I wonder if he’ll be a bit more keen to provide the requested evidence this time round to facilitate a speedy result!

Of course, we’ve all seen how the system can be worked to provide whatever result the establishment requires, and I bet it can break all speed records when there is a hurry to get that required result! I wonder what the average timescale is for this kind of action through the court system, especially where the applicant has a criminal record!

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:37 am - Mar 5, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
March 5, 2015 at 9:14 am

And just how good that will look on any share issue prospectus? – ‘Shares suspended twice in the short history of the company, but nothing to worry about there, just another day at the office for RIFC plc.’

Multiple cases of tax evasion and non-payment, share suspensions, a merry-go-round of NOMADs, another merry-go-round of CEOs and Chairmen, wanted criminals, convicted criminals, court cases, onerous contracts, failure to meet any of the projections in the previous prospectus, emergency loans, huge losses year on year, main income streams diminished, the only board ever in office with a plan to run the company in a proper fashion voted out at the first opportunity…

Yes, I suppose suspension of shares isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things!

View Comment

Avatar

DeekbhoyPosted on9:37 am - Mar 5, 2015


Enjoy reading all the informed contributions but still not sure what the endgame is here for either party in a business sense. (Apart from the Blazer/tie of course)

Do not know who is advising King but I would have thought that the existing Nomad’s resignation was a possibility and would have been factored in as a possible scenario so I cannot really accept that King should be caught on the hop yesterday and his statment is a reaction to that.

Did he know that he would have difficulty being a FPP (only the 41 convictions) but that he could not sell the gig to the shareholders if he was sidelined. So he can now ‘stand aside’ after he has SH’s voting using the lack of nomad as a excuse. I am sure that he could find someone to act as a nomad in the short term subject to diligence which allows them a get out clause

Is it a tactic from Mike Ashley’s advisers who know they are putting King on the back foot. Leaves him not on the board; possibility of him being open to shadow director charges and delaying his chances of raising funds in short-term.

However for the life of me I cannot see why Ashley is still involved. Even if he has a charge on property for his loan this will be able to be redeemed at some point. As it is interest free what’s the benefit to him? It is a loss making operation that he cannot take over and he has the retail ‘sown up’ although his customer base does not want to buy. What is in it for him at this point?

Has it just got personal but that really is not Ashley’s normal game play?

View Comment

Avatar

jimmciPosted on9:40 am - Mar 5, 2015


When will Ernst &Young stop Neil Patey talking to the press. Bad enough he embarrasses himself but his nonsense surely gives them reputational concerns.
This latest nonsense in the Evening Times, as scribbled breathlessly by Matthew Lindsay is one of the most pathetic pieces of guff I’ve read in a long time. Qualifications everywhere….shoulds, coulds,maybes everywhere. All that’s missing is fingers crossed and hope to die……..Truly embarrassing but highly amusing at the same time.
By the end if it I was almost wishing I had shares in this company to provide me security for my dotage. Read on and enjoy
————————-
RANGERS will still be able to achieve long-term financial stability when Dave King takes over – despite the Ibrox club’s shares being suspended.

Matthew Lindsay
Sports Journalist
Thursday 05/03/2015

That was the prediction by financial expert Neil Patey today in the wake of WH Ireland stepping down as the nominated financial advisor.

An official Rangers statement to the AIM Stock Exchange at 4pm yesterday afternoon confirmed the Nomad had resigned.

The SPFL Championship club now has 30 days to appoint a replacement – or it faces having its shares delisted by AIM.

King, who is set to take control of his boyhood heroes at an EGM at 11am tomorrow morning, announced last night that he will delay his appointment as a director.

The Glasgow-born South Africa-based businessman has to pass AIM and SFA “fit and proper person” tests due to previous convictions for tax offences.

But Patey, a partner at major accountancy firm EY, believes the shares being suspended won’t stop the situation at Rangers stabilising.

He said: “There are various reasons for a company to have its shares suspended. It isn’t necessarily a bad thing to happen, not in this situation.

“In other circumstances, if there is volatility due to the fact that it was deemed that the company might be trading insolvently or was going to go into administration, it could be negative.

“But here it is being driven by the uncertainty of future ownership and control. It is just trying to get through a period of uncertainty. Then normal market trading can resume.

“They are still listed. They aren’t being delisted. They are just stopping trading for a period of time until normal market circumstances return.

“This just gets them through a period of extreme volatility while there is uncertainty over share direction.”

Patey added: “The new board coming in includes Dave King and for now we don’t know if he can take up his position because he is subject to fit and proper person rules.

“Part of the uncertainty surrounds the question: ‘Who is going to be running this company next week?’ Again, they are not normal trading conditions. There is significant uncertainty there.

“You could get a position where the EGM votes out the existing board, and this is an extreme scenario, and then the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) turn around and say: ‘But Dave King you can’t take up a position because you’re not fit and proper’.

“This is as much a gut feeling as anything, but if this goes through and Dave King is allowed to appoint Paul Murray and others then it does feel like you are on the verge of getting a long-term period of stability.

“The club is almost back in the Premiership, you have a board that should have the hearts and minds of the fans, Dave King should have the resources to provide financial support. You can imagine a position whereby this puts them on at least a medium-term stable platform.”

Patey doesn’t feel the suspension of the Rangers shares will prevent the Ibrox club holding a share offering to raise capital in future once King takes control.

He said: “They obviously couldn’t have a new share issue as long as the shares are suspended, but share suspensions tend to be quite short-term in nature.

“I couldn’t imagine it would last more than a couple of weeks. I would be very surprised if it got in the way of any future share issue. This share suspension should be lifted in a short period of time.”

View Comment

Avatar

beanosPosted on9:47 am - Mar 5, 2015


easyJambo says:
March 5, 2015 at 7:07 am
————————————–

EJ, i’ve been following it. been some interesting stuff, sheds some light into the murky spiv world of Whyte and Earley.

the hearing will be interesting too. a blogger defending his right to publish material as it is the public interest despite how it was obtained.

View Comment

yakutsuki

yakutsukiPosted on9:50 am - Mar 5, 2015


KEEP CALM – Carry on wi yer heids in the sand!

That’s the message I’m getting from the SMSM anyway.

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on9:55 am - Mar 5, 2015


Can we bottle whatever it is that Neil Patey is on?

Guaranteed big seller to those who need to feed their delusions.

Really though, this kind of tripe can’t be good for his employer’s brand image. I mean, they’re not all like him are they? Are they?

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:20 am - Mar 5, 2015


jimmci says:
March 5, 2015 at 9:40 am

Talk about head in the sand, they are in so deep they’ve only got their ar*es sticking out of the Sahara Desert. There isn’t one sentence there that isn’t, at the very best, wishful thinking.

Forget the more complicated financial and legal aspects, this just proves they are talking mince:

“The club is almost back in the Premiership,”

I think Hearts, Hibs, QOTS and Falkirk might see it differently, unless, like the media with regards to King’s problems being a mere detail, they (the media) know that something’s in the wind to ensure TRFC are in the Premiership next season!

I think, while acknowledging my own Jamboness, it is only Hearts that it could be said ‘are almost back in the Premiership’, and of the other hopefuls, TRFC and QOTS are the only clubs that the word ‘back’ could not be used in this respect (ignoring the fact that the top tier has only become known as the Premiership since Hearts, Hibs, and Falkirk last played there)! Scottish football is so complicated 🙄

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on10:21 am - Mar 5, 2015


jimmci says:
March 5, 2015 at 9:40 am

RANGERS will still be able to achieve long-term financial stability when Dave King takes over – despite the Ibrox club’s shares being suspended.
==========================================

A five year old could shred Patey’s logic.

Yes Neil, the susopension won’t last a long time – in fact only a month max before delisting.

Yes Neil, the suspension won’t get in the way of a share issue becuase it takes longer than a month to arrange a share issue.

Yes Neil, Dave King should have the resources to provide financial support, but does he and will he?

Neil’s job seems to be to calm the bears with his expert insight – which if memory serves has been WRONG at every single turn of this saga. You’re playing a blinder Neil, keep them bears in the dark and feed them some more inshight.

View Comment

Avatar

TBKPosted on10:22 am - Mar 5, 2015


HirsutePursuit says:
March 4, 2015 at 8:34 pm

TBF… I believe @propa_gander was being rather ‘tongue in beak’ with their comment. My understanding was that it didn’t apply. As you have stated.

View Comment

Avatar

TBKPosted on10:49 am - Mar 5, 2015


easyJambo says:
March 4, 2015 at 8:08 pm

“King’s full PR Puff Piece” (edited for accuracy)

A few comments if I may…….. :mrgreen:

1. “Paul Murray will be Rangers chairman until I’m cleared as fit and proper insists Dave King”

……….. Really? Does there not have to be a resolution at an AGM/EGM to propose removal of chairman and vote on new Chairman. I understood the resolution was to place King and Murray on the board…. or did I read that incorrectly?

2. “THE club owner-in-waiting”

………. Is he really? With a whopping 14% of the shareholding?

3. “DAVE KING has tonight revealed Paul Murray will be named on Friday as Rangers chairman while the Stock Market and SFA bosses rule on whether he is fit and proper.”

……..see point 1.

4. “The Castlemilk-born businessman released a conciliatory statement that accepted he should be scrutinised by financial and Hampden rulers.”

….No need for Court approval then? I’m sure HMRC and BDO are totally fine with the appointment….

5. “King, who will be successful in blitzing the current board at the egm in 48 hours”

…. Really? Lets see shall we.

6. “It is important that I lead by example following my commitment to transparency and accountability.”

……said the “shameless, ..glib,.. liar”

7. “Paul Murray has agreed to act as interim chairman of the company until this process has been concluded. Additional board appointments will be announced in the near future.”

…..Perhaps you should release a statement to AIM confirming your intentions…..Oh wait!…

8. “I stressed in previous communications that the club must operate in a transparent manner with the appropriate standard of governance and accountability.”

….hmm? Just like EBTs/ Side letters and Tax avoidance, with the previous “company”?

9. “The club must also take this opportunity to rebuild relationships with the football community in Scotland. This will be to the benefit of the club and Scottish football as a whole.”

Well thats easy! Why not start by coming out and openly condemn the vile sectarian & racist behaviour by the majority of the support? That would go a long way to build relationships…That and an apology for cheating?

10. “…Consequently, to WH Ireland’s and the board’s knowledge, it is blatantly dishonest to suggest that my imminent appointment to the board was of concern to them.”

……said the “shameless, ..glib,.. liar”

11. “Fortunately, the general meeting is not affected by the suspension. The new board will proceed to ensure that the listing is resumed as soon as possible.”

….Really? The EGM is unaffected and will go ahead? Did you not say there was no requirement as you had already won? …..and that you would hold Llambias personally responsible for the costs?

12. “I ask that all who attend the general meeting on Friday do so with the calmness and the dignity that is befitting of this great club.”

see point 9!

View Comment

Tartanwulver

TartanwulverPosted on10:53 am - Mar 5, 2015


I had thought that underneath it all, all might be well for the Rangers – promotion was a cert (either through playoffs or emergency league reconstruction), fit-and-proper personness would be announced (through the application of Brysonian logic / legals not asking anything outside a very narrow remit), money for the chase of the Champions League would be found from a pot of gold somewhere in the Bahamas (although possibly via South Africa, Hong Kong and Banstead Athletic). And so on.

But now, like an icy winter wind blowing through the room, The Patey has spoken his soothing words of reassurance. Suddenly doom and destruction seem an awful lot more likely.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on10:57 am - Mar 5, 2015


Even if DK is not appointed as a director after Friday’s EGM, he is very likely to fit the shadow director criteria.
If he appears on the marble staircase or makes any statement about company policy, that would confirm that de facto he is acting as a director. Appointing a Nomad may take a while longer than envisaged if DK is involved without being cleared to serve.

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on11:13 am - Mar 5, 2015


The proof that there are many Universes is here and irrefutable. Cancel all quantum mechanics research and divert the funding to The Govan institute of advanced study. They are about to convert light to money using only moonbeams and ludicrously infantile non sequiturs filtered via those cutting edge journalists. The smsm is forgetting that he who prays for rain also prays for mud.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on11:29 am - Mar 5, 2015


Whenever the likes of essexbeancounter & Campbellsmoney come close to destroying my faith in the accounting profession, I take solace from the knowledge that Neil Patey will pop up to restore it.

Neil Patey can always be relied upon to go that extra mile to ensure that we all receive a true iron pyrites level of service when it comes to all things Rangers.

Neil, you are a legend!

View Comment

fishnish

fishnishPosted on11:40 am - Mar 5, 2015


scapaflow says:

March 5, 2015 at 11:29 am
Neil Patey can always be relied upon to go that extra mile to ensure that we all receive a true iron pyrites level of service when it comes to all things Rangers.
………………………………………………
Patey’s ‘pyrites’?
Is that the source of Auldheid’s definition of ‘pyrrhic’…?

View Comment

Avatar

BrendaPosted on11:42 am - Mar 5, 2015


Just listened to last night’s SSB absolute belter roger Hannah and Derek Johnstone in ‘sparkling’ form 😆 to be fair Jim Delahunt did speak a lot of sense but the last call of the evening was brilliant 😉 Derek you can pick your toys up now and put them back in the pram 😉

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:43 am - Mar 5, 2015


TBK says:
March 5, 2015 at 10:49 am

For a man supposedly stepping back and having nothing to do with the running of the club/company as it would be illegal to do so until cleared by the courts, he is certainly talking like a man who is having ALL the say in what’s to happen at the club/company. I would have thought that to comply with the letter of the law he should jet off back to SA and do no more than any other shareholder might do – in this case watch the value of his shareholding drop!

I doubt the authorities will act, unless they are keen to do their duty, that is, but surely he is already breaking the law if what he says to the press is accurate! He is clearly pulling the strings if the EGM removes the current board, with Paul Murray his shadow director/chairman. From my understanding, regardless of the success of his application, it is still illegal for him to have anything at all to do with the running of the company, until he receives permission to do so.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on11:46 am - Mar 5, 2015


Allyjambo says:
March 5, 2015 at 11:43 am

Acting as a shadow director is a big No No whatever the circumstances, so I am sure Mr King will not do that, perhaps the gallant nouveau pioneer Mr Patey is supplying the advice?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:27 pm - Mar 5, 2015


scapaflow says:
March 5, 2015 at 11:46 am

Allyjambo says:
March 5, 2015 at 11:43 am

Acting as a shadow director is a big No No whatever the circumstances, so I am sure Mr King will not do that, perhaps the gallant nouveau pioneer Mr Patey is supplying the advice?
______________________________

I get the feeling that King doesn’t quite get this, as I am sure such people, who flaunt the law in their normal business dealings, tend to do. To me he seems to be getting carried away on his victory parade, even before the battle is won, and just can’t stop himself playing to the gallery. I presume he is taking advice from lawyers, but he won’t be the first to ignore advice that doesn’t fit in to his normal (for him) business methods which seem to be to grab maximum publicity giving the impression of huge confidence to woo the target audience of investors. At the moment he is giving a very good impression of a Charles Green. Keep talking and don’t give them time to think or ask questions you are not prepared for!

Unless his application is treated with no more than a cursory glance and nod of the head, surely this grandstanding, and obvious contempt for the law itself, must reduce his chances of success with his application as he has clearly learned nothing from his more serious brush with the law and continues to show contempt for any idea of proper behaviour for a company director.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:33 pm - Mar 5, 2015


As I’m not a Rangers supporter it actually matters nothing to me who ends up controlling the Ibrox club in its current incarnation.

It’s interesting in a ‘Game of Thrones’ kind of way to watch the machinations and power struggle taking place over the tattered corpse of Rangers the club.

The weight of comment here is totally opposed to DK and those associated with him and there is reason a plenty for that which I wouldn’t argue with.

But in watching the PR-style carpet-bombing of the requistioners’ camp as opposed to the Ashley tank berms I have to wonder . . .

Is Ashley actually solely interested in Rangers? Or does his interest extend much further in terms of Scottish Football?

I suspect the latter is more likely to be the case and while some are fixated in destroying DK and his supporters perhaps they should keep one eye firmly fixed on what Ashley may actually be about.

Succulent Lamb is obviously back on the agenda for the SMSM which may well explain the seeming blinkered approach to the latest Ibrox Saviour with his tarnished blue armour and threadbare chainmail.

But I doubt if the frenzy is just about returning Rangers to its ‘Rightful Place’ but more about hastily erecting defences against a feared Ashley Masterplan for Scottish Football.

That tsunami might well destroy the game as we know it. In itself it might not be a bad thing but the problem I have with the Ashley philosophy is that I doubt if he has any real interest in Scottish Football but only the profit that can be squeezed from it.

In that sense I sympathise with fans of Rangers and NUFC and think it would be a mistake not to keep him under the microscope just because he is viewed by many as a White Knight about to put his blue-clad adversary to the sword financially.

Armageddon can arrive in many different forms and often from a direction least expected.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on12:40 pm - Mar 5, 2015


ecobhoy says:
March 5, 2015 at 12:33 pm

King would be a disaster for Rangers, and bad for Scottish Football. Ashley, on the other hand has the potential to be as devastating to football as a whole, as the Black Death was to 14th Century Europe.

There are no good options for Rangers fans, or anyone else for that matter, in the circumstances they (& we) find ourselves in.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on12:42 pm - Mar 5, 2015


I get the impression that Mr King believes, since he forced an EGM, to oust the Board,he automatically becomes the head man. He is not a majority shareholder. Dont the other shareholders have a say as to who should be the new Chairman? Surely he can’t act as dictator because his resolution is passed.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on12:44 pm - Mar 5, 2015


ecobhoy says:
March 5, 2015 at 12:33 pm

Is Ashley actually solely interested in Rangers? Or does his interest extend much further in terms of Scottish Football?

I suspect the latter is more likely to be the case and while some are fixated in destroying DK and his supporters perhaps they should keep one eye firmly fixed on what Ashley may actually be about.

====================================================================
Eco – interesting thoughts. RIFC/TRFC are wretched assets with potential to barely move the Ashley profit-o-meter. But Scottish football – now there’s an under-performing asset that really could make some serious money. Imagine professionally negotiated TV and sponsorship deals, rigorous governance, fairly applied rules, the buying power of 42 clubs, imported referees. Maybe Ashley and Hearn have had a chat and Mike has a big plan. I’m not sure how he would go about it but controlling a whole league could spark his interest 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

TBKPosted on12:55 pm - Mar 5, 2015


Allyjambo says:
March 5, 2015 at 11:43 am

…. indeed!

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on1:04 pm - Mar 5, 2015


Fit and Proper

Is a criminal record not a red flag that an individual has a disregard for the rule of law – and needs to be regarded with some suspicion – mitigated by evidence of good behaviour and kindness to animals since the proven crime?

Is a very recent criminal record of over 40 convictions contested over more than a decade – with many more charges dropped in a plea bargain – not a nuclear air raid siren to anyone in authority who plans to apply and maintain the rule of law?

What has Mr King done since conviction to mitigate his former disregard for the rule of law and which animals has he been kind to?

I would suggest that Mr King has acheived negative mitigation by trying his utmost to misrepresent and obscure his convictions, whilst cruelly baiting gulible bears.

Mr King may be fit and proper for The Rangers, but is he fit and proper for Scottish football?

What say you 41 clubs ?

What say you Stewart Regan?

What say you Neil Doncaster?

What say you Peter Lawwell?

Scottish football needs to take the cheese out of its ears – unless it wants another ten years of pantomime governance, measly sponsorship and minuscule TV deals.

View Comment

Avatar

TBKPosted on1:08 pm - Mar 5, 2015


Just when you thought the Scottish Media couldn’t sink any lower this response was given to a question at a press conference about a new global shirt deal. ……

Peter A Smith @PeterAdamSmith
“Lawwell: Celtic has no attachment, historically or now, with Irish Republican identity and those promoting proscribed groups are not welcome”

I thought the questioning of Martin ONeil was bad at the time, when asked what he (personally) would do to end Sectarianism in Scottish Football…..but this is a new low for The SMSM………an occasional embarrassment, and a permanent disgrace!

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on1:09 pm - Mar 5, 2015


mcfc says:
March 5, 2015 at 1:04 pm

They all say yes, and Peter asks, when do we re-start the pre-spfl coffee meetings :mrgreen:

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoia

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on1:18 pm - Mar 5, 2015


mcfc says:
March 5, 2015 at 10:21 am
jimmci says:
March 5, 2015 at 9:40 am

A five year old could shred Patey’s logic.

Yes Neil, the susopension won’t last a long time – in fact only a month max before delisting.

Yes Neil, the suspension won’t get in the way of a share issue becuase it takes longer than a month to arrange a share issue.

Yes Neil, Dave King should have the resources to provide financial support, but does he and will he?

Neil’s job seems to be to calm the bears with his expert insight – which if memory serves has been WRONG at every single turn of this saga. You’re playing a blinder Neil, keep them bears in the dark and feed them some more inshight.
______________________________________________________

It would be interesting if someone compiled a list of all the quotes from this guy re RFC/TRFC matters over the past 3 or 4 years that have proven to be hopelessly wrong. I reckon that would be all the statements he’s made on the subject.

Yet the media still use him for reasons we could never begin to fathom. :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:

View Comment

Avatar

100BJDPosted on1:41 pm - Mar 5, 2015


Check Tom Winnifrith out on Earley…Whyte etc

http://www.shareprophets.com/views/10738/the-worthington-fraud-part-15-this-is-the-killer-email

Subscribe for a detailed look at Worthington in action. Unbelievable!

View Comment

Comments are closed.