THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight


Gunnerb May 13, 2017 at 17:53  Received this link is in …

Comment on THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight by easyJambo.

gunnerb May 13, 2017 at 17:53 
Received this link is in an email this morning from my bro-in-law. He highlighted the fact that TRFC are not listed and suggested that this might mean no license to play in uefa competitions ?
I don’t think that’s the case.

It is more likely that the 5 year cycle of Oldco’s coefficient points (the last ones earned on their day trips to Malmo and Maribor in 2011/12) have just dropped off the list.

The newco will just get Scotland’s basic coefficient figure for teams that haven’t featured in Europe for the previous five seasons.

easyJambo Also Commented

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
Smugas May 13, 2017 at 09:31
The SPA commitments were £18m debt to Lloyds, £2.8m for the WTC, £1.7m for the H&S issue, £5m working capital and £5M per year investment in the playing squad for four years, for a total of £47.5m.

I’m not sure whether or not JJ has the £8m RFC Ticketus liability correct, as I don’t know if the £8m borrowing occurred during season 2009/10, 2010/11 or both.  There was mention of an £8m advance by the Advocate Depute during McGill’s evidence on 9th May, although I wasn’t in court that day.

James Doleman tweeted the following, on 9th May, suggesting that the £8m referred to was during season 2009/10 in respect of STs for season 2010/11:
Advocate Depute shows agreement between Ticketus and Whyte to sell £20m worth of season tickets, notes in previous season RFC borrowed £8m

A day or two earlier an unspecified RFC Ticketus liability, which sounded as if it related to season 2010/11, was also mentioned in court while I was present. However, I wasn’t 100% certain that I had picked up the information correctly, and the point wasn’t followed up so I didn’t get confirmation one way or another.

Incidentally, Lloyds had apparently set a limit on Ticketus funding of £5M.   Again on 9th May, when Findlay was cross examining McGill, James Doleman tweeted:
Letter from Bank of Scotland to Rangers from 2009, mentions £34m credit facility agreed in 2004.
Document goes on to say bank limited any borrowing from Ticketus over £5m and must be repaid by June

It’s probably not widely known, but Whyte actually made two payments back to Ticketus during his brief tenure.  From the D&P creditors report of 5 April 2012, it notes that Whyte repaid £3m in June 2011 and £5m in September 2011. However, he also borrowed a further £5m in September 2011 (probably the same £5m he repaid), by mortgaging a fourth season’s STs.

It is not clear whether or not the £8m repaid related to earlier borrowing by RFC, or was in fact the amount due to be repaid from STs from 2011/12 for Whyte’s first year of his initial three year deal.

From other documents that I’ve kept, Ticketus provided circa £20.3m in May 2011 and £5m in September 2011.  In the civil action Ticketus v Whyte, the claim was for £18.2m and the amount awarded was £17.7m, being the net exposure of Ticketus without interest or the expected profit.

The above figures suggest to me that the repayments made by Whyte were in respect of the first year of his deal rather than any previous borrowing by RFC.

I also note that Ticketus’ creditor claim against RFC (2012) was £26.7m, which may be the total amount outstanding that Ticketus would have expected to receive from RFC over the remainder of the Whyte deal. 

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
StevieBC May 11, 2017 at 15:02 
Just a general observation, about life in general. 
I am thinking that a duped person can actually be the ‘duper’ ?
Indubitably 12

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
James Doleman‏ @jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes ago   
No live tweeting of Craig Whyte trial today.

Boo hisssssss!!!

James Doleman‏ @jamesdoleman
For legal reasons can’t comment on why no live tweets Will post updates during breaks

Recent Comments by easyJambo

Who Is Conning Whom?
I’m afraid I’m away on holiday while next Friday’s hearings are on. I’m unsure if JC is similarly unavailable.

Who Is Conning Whom?
Court business for next Friday morning:
LORD TYRE – C Munn, Clerk
Friday 15th December
By Order
Between 9.00 and 10.00am
P115/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under para75  –  Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP  –  Wright Johnston & Mackenzie LLP

This is the BDO action against the administrators

… also

LORD DOHERTY – E Hunter, Clerk
Friday 15th December

P997/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under4.16 –
Dentons – Brodies LLP

Who Is Conning Whom?
Statement O’Clock

THERE has been a great deal of media speculation regarding the appointment of a new manager. We assure all supporters that they will be the first to know when we are certain we have someone with the correct qualities required by our club.

The Chairman made it clear at the AGM that the club did not consider there to be an outstanding candidate among those who had applied for the position and the club was therefore considering managers currently under contract. This requires permission from their present clubs.

The position of Rangers manager requires an ability to win football matches and the mentality to cope with the demanding off-pitch environment that goes with being the Rangers manager. This is a critical aspect of our assessment of any candidate during the interview process.

After the two games against Aberdeen, we requested permission to engage with their manager to assess his readiness and willingness to consider the Rangers position. This was declined. We were subsequently made aware by Aberdeen’s statement that, at this stage in his career, it would be best for him to remain in his current post. We endorse that position because moving to a massive club like Rangers is a big step with concomitant risk. We continue to consider candidates but will only appoint someone in whom we have full confidence and who feels he is ready for the job.

In the meantime, we have great confidence in Graeme Murty, who will continue as interim manager at least until the end of the year. The manner in which he has approached this task is a credit to himself and the club.

Who Is Conning Whom?
From the D&P Creditors report of 24 Aug 2012
6.4 As has been widely publicised, the Purchaser was unsuccessful in its application for the transfer of the Company‟s SPL share and following further negotiations with the Football Authorities, ultimately agreed such terms as were necessary to obtain the transfer of the Company‟s SFA membership and gain membership of the SFL. The terms of these agreements were, inter alia:
6.4.1 that the Company‟s SPL share was transferred to Dundee Football Club.
6.4.2 that the Company‟s SFA membership was transferred to the Purchaser.
6.4.3 that the SFA Appellate Tribunal, which was due to be reconvened following the Interlocuter of Lord Glennie on the Club‟s Judicial Review, was empowered to impose the Transfer Embargo.
6.4.4 that the Purchaser is required to assume liability for all football-related creditors, being all creditors of the Company that are football clubs, the Football Authorities or clubs of the other national football associations. This includes outstanding transfer fees and SFA disciplinary fines arising from the SFA Disciplinary Tribunal commented on in previous reports.

6.5 For clarification, any monies due from the SPL were included amongst the assets of the Company sold to the Purchaser and were reflected in the sale consideration paid. It was therefore for the Purchaser to negotiate with the SPL regarding payment of these monies, which was concluded in the above noted agreements.

(The “above noted agreements” were those that formed the 5-way agreement, although the agreement wasn’t specified as such in the Creditors report)

Who Is Conning Whom?
From the RFC CVA proposal

CVA Assets
5.9 If the Conditions are satisfied and the Sevco loan is drawn down, the CVA Assets available to creditors will comprise:
5.9.1 £8,300,000;
5.9.2 The Player Transfer Fees;
5.9.3 Any sums awarded and paid (less applicable costs) to the Company in respect of the High Court Proceedings less costs and expenses of the Administration, or of the Joint Administrators, and CVA Trading Costs;
5.10 The Excluded Assets will be excluded from the CVA, as they are required to be utilised by the Company for the purpose of continued trading of the Company.
5.11 For the avoidance of doubt, the proceeds of all sums due from the SPL together with any broadcasting monies payable to the Company will be payable to the Company but for the benefit of Sevco (in the event that this Proposal is approved and the Loan drawn down) and shall be Excluded Assets.

About the author