Acouple of weeks ago we revisited the OCNC debate. This is a useful exercise to turn to periodically, for I have noticed how, with the passage of time, new aspects have become clear as new information emerges, or some ridiculous claim is made and then debunked.
In those circumstances, we are given the opportunity to reassess what we already know using the new known knowns, or finding significance in something previously overlooked, but now shed in a new light.
Or put another way, the Beauty of Hindsight!
In introducing his notion that both ‘sides’ are merely putting their opinion, SFM contributor MarkC recently brought me to see that one side must be correct and factual, while the other will merely be left expressing an opinion. In the same way that one side must be right, because TRFC is either a new club, or it’s not, one argument must be the one that is factually correct and leaving the other as just opinion (at best). Once a factual argument is put forward, it can only be countered with fact, for anything else is just opinion.
Armed with facts, there would be no need to prove that TRFC is a new club, for first it would be necessary for those who claim ‘same club’ to show, using documentary evidence and facts, that ‘Rangers Football Club’ isn’t currently in liquidation.
So, factual evidence; what facts do we have?
Well, it is a fact that Rangers Football Club availed itself of the advantages of incorporation in 1899, and it’s a fact that Rangers Football Club Plc entered the terminal state of liquidation in 2012.
It is also a fact that at no time since this incorporation took place has anyone been aware of any other Rangers Football Club ensconced within Ibrox, no one has written or spoken about it; or not, at least, until a snake oil salesman used it to push his off the shelf company as ‘The Rangers Football Club Limited’.
What’s more, no other failed incorporated football club has ever availed itself of this new notion of the ‘eternal club’. The SFA was apparently unaware of it either, for they never offered up the salvation of its use to the likes of Airdrieonians, or Gretna, or dear old Third Lanark.
In fact it seems to have miraculously appeared only as a result of the failed CVA attempt of Rangers FC Plc, and the words of one of the spivs who surrounded Ibrox at that time (and for some time before, and after).
The only ‘fact’ put forward to support the ‘same club’ argument is that the SPL say, in their rules, that they are the same club. But the rules don’t actually make them the ‘same club’, for it’s not the SPL’s place to say what is and isn’t a club, and they only explain how they would treat the situation under their rules, and as Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit (see appendices I, II and III) brought to our attention, the football authorities had reasons to introduce this to their rules that had nothing to do with establishing a separate club that lives on eternally.
It does, though, as Easyjambo’s post describes, show a willingness by football’s governors to change the rules to support their desired outcome.
As Hirsutepursuit (Appendix II) points out, the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005. So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?
And that brings me to look again at what Lord Nimmo Smith said of how the SPL rules view the continuation of a ‘Rangers’ (see appendix IV for reference). In short, a lot of words that confuse rather than clarify, and give no legal basis, or justification, for what he, or the SPL rules, say. Basically, the rules say ‘Rangers’ continues as the same club because the SPL rules say it does.
Then, in January 2015, Doncaster said this in an interview with the BBC:
“In terms of the question about old club, new club, that was settled very much by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission that was put together by the SPL to look at EBT payments at that time.
“The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.”
What Doncaster seems to be saying here is that TRFC are RFC because LNS said so.
Which is strange because it was the SPL’s own rules, and nothing else, that LNS based his findings on, and to have lent weight to the ‘same club’ argument, LNS would have had to have used some independent reasoning, or examples in law, to back this up. Instead we are left with the following:
- (i) the SPL, through an interpretation of their rules, told LNS that they looked on TRFC as the ‘same club’,
- (ii) so LNS said the SPL looked on TRFC as RFC,
- (iii) and then Doncaster said it’s the same club because LNS said so,
It’s a bit like me telling Big Pink (who is an acknowledged expert in the field of colours) that SFM treat black as white, BP tells the world that SFM treat black as white, and a couple of years down the road I announce that black is white, because Big Pink said so!
SOMETHING IMPORTANT I THINK WE’VE OVERLOOKED
Now here’s a fact for us all to consider. At some point Rangers FC ceased to be a member of the SPL. With the help of Neil Doncaster, Sevco (Scotland) Ltd tried to gain entry to the SPL and to participate as The Rangers FC. They failed.
Whatever entity was trying to gain entry into Scottish football, it was at that time not a member of the SPL, and so never had been under the jurisdiction of the SPL.
Therefore whatever the SPL rules or Doncaster said, or what conclusion LNS reached over the matter when it was based solely on what the SPL rules said, it madeno difference to the new club, since the SPL or Doncaster had no locus in the matter. Sevco were in limbo, and everything then depended on Sevco, as The Rangers FC, getting entry into the SFL.
Now, the ‘same club’ argument’s only factual ‘evidence’ is the SPL’s rules, and if they hadn’t included the recent amendment highlighted in Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit’s posts, then there would be no ‘factual’ evidence, at all, however flimsy it might be.
So let’s take a look at what the SFL’s Constitution and Rules say on the matter, and I will quote the relevant parts!
Here’s what it says on a liquidated club joining the league:
“ …”
And here’s what it says, in full, about how it would treat a liquidated member club:
“ …”
In fact, there is absolutely no mention of liquidated clubs in the SFL’s Constitution and Rules, because the notion that a club could live on after liquidation is just that, a notion invented by a spiv!
And because liquidation means the end of a football club, there is absolutely no reason for rules covering such an eventuality to be considered within the rules of football.
And as I said earlier:
‘…the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005.
So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?’
What is now obvious is that there was nothing in the rules of Scottish football that gives succour to the notion that TRFC is one and the same football club as RFC.
When the SPL clubs voted against Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, from entering the SPL, they made the SPL rules on the ‘same club’ matter irrelevant.
When Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, entered the SFL, they were, according to the SFL’s own rules, a new club, for there is nothing in the rules that says otherwise, or can be interpreted as saying so!
Of course, by the time Doncaster made his nonsense statement, the SFL had been disbanded, and it’s clubs were now part of the SPFL, with rules tailored to suit those who bought into the ‘same club’ notion. Handy, huh?
WAS IT ALL ABOUT ARMAGEDDON?
We all laughed at the time it was spewed forth, but perhaps Armageddon was a real possibility, but not in the way we were encouraged to believe. We know that RFC owed a significant amount of money (football debts) to clubs outside of Scotland, and so outside of the SFA’s influence. We also know, with some certainty, that the SFA turned a blind eye to, or were incompetent in policing, some of RFC’s wrongdoings (the EBTs and European Licence) and the last thing the SFA, and SPL, would want would be non-Scottish clubs kicking up the inevitable stink and getting UEFA/FIFA involved, and investigating the SFA. So how to prevent it?
Plan D (plans A through to C had been used up trying to save RFC)
Create a scenario where TRFC must pay these debts, is the answer! How to do that? Well there’s that rule in the SPL Rule book! Right! but we must ensure Rangers stay in the SPL! Easy, we’ll frighten the other clubs into voting them into the SPL, and so TRFC will have to pay ‘Rangers’ football debts… Oops, the vote went against us! OK, we can stall the other leagues for a year, let’s get them into the Championship, promotion’s a certainty… Oops, we did it again… Let’s create a new set up, all under the (effective) SPL umbrella, with rules to suit, before anyone notices!
Could it be that all that help wasn’t so much because, or not only because, it was ‘Rangers’, but because of what no Rangers, to pay the non-Scottish football debt, might mean for the SFA and SPL, and so for the whole of Scottish football? Was that the real Armageddon?
Footnote
While putting this blog piece together I found it very difficult to write whenever I had to include the ‘what do you call it’ newly discovered ‘club’ thingy.
I find the ‘big C/little c’ method of describing it to be a nonsense, and at best a poor effort to create whatever it was they (whoever they are) wanted to create.
Even Lord Nimmo Smith, a much more learned man than I, failed to come up with a word, phrase or expression to adequately describe it. In short, a club with a capital ‘C’ is exactly the same as a club with a small ‘c’ – and only a fool could imagine it creates a difference!
Is a game of Football somehow different from a game of football?
But, of course, what can you call something that you can’t see, you can’t feel, can’t hear, can’t smell, something that has never been heard of or spoken of before?
Clearly, LNS could find nothing within the millions of words previously written within the myriad of cases dealt with under Scots Law, UK Law and EU Law, and clubs and associations, both corporate and incorporate, will have been the subject of a fair number of legal cases in the past for him to draw on, yet there was no answer to this conundrum to be found there.
And if Lord Nimmo Smith was unable to draw on his legal knowledge or research, he was merely expressing a layman’s opinion on how the SPL viewed a ‘????????’ club!
In such circumstances, his opinion is no more valid than any other reasonable person’s might be!
Acknowledgements
Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit for the posts I have used in the appendices and my thanks in particular to EJ for kindly providing me with some documents I was unable to find on the internet by myself.
I’d also like to acknowledge the part MarkC played in bringing the debate back to SFM’s attention, it can’t be easy, constantly arguing against the accepted wisdom in any debate, but it always seems to bring out the best in us and something new.
APPENDIX I: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:02
EASTWOODMARCH 1, 2017 at 08:366 Votes …
Deviously, both the SPL (around 10 years ago coinciding with Rangers (In Liquidation) entering very choppy waters) and the SFA more recently, changed their rules to adopt this distinct “Club” (capital ‘C’) type definition, distinguishing it from the “owner and operator” company. It could have been said at the time to be a licence for unscrupulous, badly run “Clubs” to dump debts and shaft creditors, and so it proved with Sevco’s exploitation of these rules.
In 2005 the SPL changed its articles to create the definition of Club (with a capital C) – which actually INCLUDES the ‘owner and operator’. Whether the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED depends on the context of the article in which it is used and to WHICH Club (with a capital C) it is referring.
The SFA did not add the ‘owner and operator’ tag until 2013.
It is interesting because the original SPL articles referred to the clubs (with a lower case c) as its members. Its members each held shares in the SPL. The clubs were listed by their full company names – rather than their trading names.
The Club (with a capital C) definition came about because the SPL were trying to launch SPL2 and one of the clubs (with a lower case c) that could have been included was Brechin.
Brechin is not a company, so could not as a club (with a lower case c) become a member/shareholder in the SPL. To cover this eventuality, a form of words was created that would allow the club (with a lower case c) to play in the SPL even if the share was not actually held by the club (with a lower case c).
If a club (with a lower case c) has not been incorporated, the club (with a lower case c) cannot own anything. In such cases, the assets are held by its members (usually a committee member or members). Since the original articles defined the member/shareholder as a club (with a lower case c), it would have resulted in the committee member who took ownership of the SPL share being defined as the club (with a lower case c).
The reference to ‘undertaking of a football club’ in the definition of Club (with a capital C) meant that it could refer to both an incorporated body and an unincorporated body of persons.
So the context of when the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED from the definition of a Club (with a capital C) is only when that owner and operator is not a club (with a lower case c).
What is even more interesting is that three non-corporate clubs (with a lower case c) have each been listed as members/shareholders of the current SPFL – even though none have the legal personality to own anything.
…which is strange.
APPENDIX II: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:32
I should add that LNS found The Rangers Football Club PLC (the owner and operator) guilty of offences that predate the creation, in 2005, of the definition of Clubs (with a capital C).
Even if you accept that Rangers FC (the Club with a capital C) can be separated from The Rangers Football Club PLC/RFC 2012 (the owner and operator) – which, to be clear, I do not – that distinction only came about in 2005.
So if there is guilt prior to 2005, that guilt lay with the club (with a lower case c).
LNS didn’t seem to spot the distinction.
…which is even stranger.
APPENDIX III: EASYJAMBO
March 2, 2017 at 08:01
My recollection of the change in the SPL and SFA rules on “Owner and Operator” was implemented in early 2006, as the SFA wished to sanction Vladimir Romanov for his comments, but couldn’t do so because he held no official post at the club (small “c”).
It was Vlad’s son Roman who was Hearts chairman at the time, although Vlad was the major shareholder. So feel free to blame Vlad for the change in the rules.
Hearts were fined £10,000 by the SFA for Vlad’s comments about referees in October 2006. The DR article below, suggests that the SFA rule change came into effect in May that year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/heart
APPENDIX IV
(46) It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule 11 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club.
Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.
While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.
So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator.
While there can be no Question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions Which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 9 of the list of preliminary issues.
ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 25, 2017 at 11:06
======================================
If I remember correctly the assessment was issued in November 2010. The argument they always used that if they had appealed, or had the right to appeal open to them the the money wasn’t actually due, and only became so when they agreed to the bill being accurate.
Bearing in mind the SFA would have been willing to accept any old rubbish, so long as they thought it vindicated them granting the licence.
HomunculusApril 25, 2017 at 12:16 (Edit)
ALLYJAMBO APRIL 25, 2017 at 11:06 ======================================
If I remember correctly the assessment was issued in November 2010. The argument they always used that if they had appealed, or had the right to appeal open to them the the money wasn’t actually due, and only became so when they agreed to the bill being accurate.
Bearing in mind the SFA would have been willing to accept any old rubbish, so long as they thought it vindicated them granting the licence.
___________________
Hopefully it will be clarified whether or not an appeal was made, for if not, then there can be no doubt that the debt was outstanding well before March 2011.
ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 25, 2017 at 12:24
===================================
Agreed.
At the very latest the tax was due on the last day any appeal could be made. If they chose not to make it that is also accepting that the assessment is accurate and the tax is due.
Witness shown copy of Rangers financial report Jan 2011
asked why financial report forecasts a fall in season ticket income?
‘Was the trend that season’ McIntyre replies.
Findlay notes the financial report doesn’t mention tax case liability or capital expenditure needed on stadium.
2011 report notes ‘our agreement with Ticketus has reduced our bank debt’
(does that mean the reduction of the debt to Lloyds to £18m wasn’t quite the achievement it was painted out to be by the SMSM?)
Ticketus buy tickets at a discount and sell them at face value, though the club.
Therefore any sales to Ticketus would as a matter of course mean a fall in income, even if the same number were sold.
Findlay suggests that in 2011, Rangers were in ‘financial difficulty’
Big tax case potentially a ‘terminal event’
Findlay: ‘Murray would do virtually anything to secure the deal with Mr Whyte’
McIntyre disagrees
Findlay: ‘They sold the club for a £1 coin’
Adds ‘assuming the coin was ever handed over’
Email from Lloyds to McIntyre, 9 May 2011, just as sale is being completed. Loan and security transferred to Wavetower £15m loan cancelled
‘All bank accounts across the group must be kept in credit, this must be completed today’
Brutal stuff, Findlay suggests
All electronic transfers cancelled, including BACS system used to pay salaries
Findlay ‘Lloyds severed all links with Rangers and said ‘don’t come back”
McIntyre ‘effectively, yes’
Findlay asks if Rangers board ever discussed going into administration, McIntyre says ‘cropped up’ in 2010
McIntyre. ‘it would have been remiss of us not to have discussions’. Agreed administration discussed before Whyte came on scene
Board hoped ‘if Rangers said they couldn’t pay the revenue would just say ‘oh well’ Findlay suggests
McIntyre disagrees
Minutes: ‘a new investor would keep the club alive’
Minutes: ‘The club has no value to offer settlement (to HMRC)
Court adjourns for lunch. Back at 2pm
Well, despite Mr Findlay’s earlier note, it’s clear from the minutes that the club dies with the club! I wonder why Mr Findlay doesn’t dispute or clarify this anomaly in the same club notion? Could it be that he doesn’t want to risk a second judge refusing to discuss ‘metaphysics’!
HomunculusApril 25, 2017 at 12:32 6 Votes
ALLYJAMBO APRIL 25, 2017 at 12:24 ===================================
Agreed.
At the very latest the tax was due on the last day any appeal could be made. If they chose not to make it that is also accepting that the assessment is accurate and the tax is due.
++++++++++++++++
I posted on this some time ago, but can’t find it now.I did research the legislation, and the Revenue’s internal instructions.
There are no provisions under which tax determined in this way can be formally postponed. The Collector of Taxes can informally put a hold on collection, but the tax due remains payable.
If I find my previous post, I’ll put it back up.
Quote of the morning session – from the Board minutes of 11 March 2011. Alastair Johnston re the tax cases- “HMRC needs to be educated about Rangers Football Club’s ability to pay”
Thanks for the updates AJ.
I think it’s becoming clearer that we were right, Findlay is going down the route of the club being a basket case before Whyte going anywhere near it. He may well have other lines as well but that certainly seems to be the direction he is heading in with the first few witnesses.
The revelation that they had previously discussed administration, before he even became involved will go down well with the support.
We have a club with a tax bill it clearly couldn’t afford to pay, a bank wanting nothing more to do with them, and having to sell season tickets at a discount to see the season out.
It is easy to accept that the SFA knew that, at least in part, and agreed that European income was their last chance of survival.
It is little wonder Murray was willing to sell to anyone just to get away from the situation.
And all of that is without even considering the big tax case.
NEEPHEID
APRIL 25, 2017 at 13:15
================================
As I understand it the tax is due as soon as the assessment is issued. Even if an appeal is lodged it should be paid.
However in the event that it would cause a business to fold HMRC will not enforce the debt prior to the appeal being heard.
easyJamboApril 25, 2017 at 13:18 (Edit)
Quote of the morning session – from the Board minutes of 11 March 2011. Alastair Johnston re the tax cases- “HMRC needs to be educated about Rangers Football Club’s ability to pay”
___________________
I’m surprised he didn’t say that HMRC needs to be educated about Rangers Football Club’s place in society, and that ‘we are the people’! If only they’d known that, the club’s ability to pay would have mattered not!
I’d be a little wary of reading too much into the basket case argument at this time. The bottom line was that Whyte accepted the conditions / commitments / obligations as part of the SPA.
Whether or not those are legally enforceable might be a topic for later discussion.
e.g. having taken control, then seeing the actual state of the club, is it possible to legally backtrack from what was stated in the SPA.
EASYJAMBO
APRIL 25, 2017 at 13:36
=================================
Don’t get too caught up in facts, mate.
Findlay’s style is to play to the jury and a “not proven” verdict will do him and Whyte just fine.
From the perspective of truth it’s just good to see these people getting cross-examined under oath.
Findlay asks McIntyre about meeting with Whyte 24 April 2011
McIntyre confirms was no obligation for Whyte to meet ‘independent board committee’
Agreed Whyte was at liberty not to say source of money
McIntyre says can’t recall if administration discussed at meeting
Whyte said he had ‘no plans’ to put club into administration McIntyre tells the court
neepheid
April 25, 2017 at 13:15
Does this help?
Peace – Not War
neepheid
November 20, 2016 at 10:24
Findlay asks if Share Purchase Agreement between Whyte and David Murray makes mention of ‘third party funding’
McIntyre doesn’t think so
Jan 20011 letter to RFC directors from bank of Scotland lays out ‘working capital facility of £15m and £22m term loan facility
Letter amends the agreement, and revises the interest rate McIntyre tells the court
Conditions of loan was it would be repaid at £1m pa.
McIntyre says bank did not raise any restrictions on advance sale of season tickets
McIntyre shown email in which he mentions the Murray Group has been ‘conservative in their disclosure’ to Whyte over the ongoing tax cases.
Findlay: ‘Murray holdings were hiding things basically’
McIntyre: ‘They weren’t putting information in the data room’
I can hear some rather dramatic music in the background at this point…
Findlay: This was the takeover of a major business, that couldn’t be right’
McIntyre: ‘You’d have to ask the other party’
McIntyre shown an email he got from Murray International Holdings saying ‘No need to provide any correspondence with the bank’
Email also states ‘no need to provide a three year forecast’
Findlay suggests Murray International ‘were not approaching this ‘with openness in mind’
McIntyre replies ‘they were being selective’
McIntyre says plan was to disclose ‘sensitive information’ later in the process ‘you have to weigh openness and confidentiality’
Email also says ‘executive salaries’ were not to be disclosed to Mr Whyte
‘They were trying to hide information’ Findlay says
Wow!!!
13 Jan 2011 board meeting minutes shown to witness. McIntyre quoted as saying an ‘insolvency practitioner’ appointed. 1/2
McIntyre says was concerned company was ‘wrongly trading’ as tax case could bankrupt club 2/2
These last two tweets posted with best regards to Homunculous.
I think you’ll like them
McIntyre says insolvency practitioner was appointed to ensure club not ‘illegally trading’
HomunculusApril 25, 2017 at 13:19
‘….We have a club with a tax bill it clearly couldn’t afford to pay, a bank wanting nothing more to do with them, and having to sell season tickets at a discount to see the season out.
It is easy to accept that the SFA knew that, at least in part, and agreed that European income was their last chance of survival. ”
________
Yes.
Very easy indeed to believe that Peat and his successor as President, Ogilvie, would have known.
Of the CEOs, Regan was appointed as CEO in 2010 ,replacing Gordon Smith. It’s difficult to believe that neither of these was aware of the disaster that RFC had become.
In life, decisions have to be made, such as whether to lie on one’s own behalf, or on behalf of one’s friends , or whether to do one’s job honestly and tell the plain, if unpleasant, unvarnished truth.
I believe that certain individuals chose to lie: and that there was a ‘concert party’ thingy to deceive UEFA to try to save the sinking ship that was SDM’s RFC.
The trial of Whyte is throwing up matters that have nothing to do with him or his alleged crimes, but everything to do with what SFM is chiefly about, namely, that the blatant wrongdoing of one club now, in effect ,defunct as a football club, was known to and aided and abetted by the SFA years ago; and that that ‘aiding and abetting’ wasalso provided to a wholly new club against every canon of ordinary sense, and every commercial and legal understanding of what ‘Liquidation’ means, as well as against every understanding of what ‘football-as-a-business’ has meant to many clubs, no longer in existence.
The abuse of office is a far more serious matter than the alleged crimes of a minor, insignificant runt .
McIntyre agrees Rangers ‘had no defence’ over HMRC ‘small tax case’
AllyjamboApril 25, 2017 at 14:53
13 Jan 2011 board meeting minutes shown to witness. McIntyre quoted as saying an ‘insolvency practitioner’ appointed. 1/2
McIntyre says was concerned company was ‘wrongly trading’ as tax case could bankrupt club 2/2
———————————————————————————————-
Well!!!
McIntyre confirms bill for small tax case was never paid.
About the only thing so far that the SMSM have published!
Yet never included within the scope of the LNS enquiry!
TincksApril 25, 2017 at 14:58 (Edit)
AllyjamboApril 25, 2017 at 14:53
13 Jan 2011 board meeting minutes shown to witness. McIntyre quoted as saying an ‘insolvency practitioner’ appointed. 1/2 McIntyre says was concerned company was ‘wrongly trading’ as tax case could bankrupt club 2/2———————————————————————————————-Well!!!
_________________
I think we have to view these two tweets with the one that followed:
‘McIntyre says insolvency practitioner was appointed to ensure club not ‘illegally trading’’
Which might suggest a problem was recognised and steps taken to rectify it.
ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 25, 2017 at 14:53
==========================================
Thanks, however I think today’s material will have Auldheid with a big smile on his face, and those of the others who have been arguing about the tax case, when the money was due, and whether the European licence should have been granted.
There is only one place left for the SFA to go, Rangers lied to us.
No one knew how much explosive was in the Exocet heading for Rangers’ Findlay says of the potential tax liability
McIntyre ‘bank supportive of a pre-pack administration’ describes this as ‘coming out the other side free of debt’
1/2
McIntyre said he was not supportive of administration in 2011 as ‘debt is there to be honoured’
Now there’s a concept!
#sameclub
Findlay suggests Rangers was facing financial challenges. McIntyre denies ‘the bank wanted out’
McIntyre says Rangers could have ‘sold assets’ to pay off the bank.
Findlay ‘why didn’t you do it then?’
A question we have asked, rhetorically, for quite some time!
ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 25, 2017 at 15:08
‘McIntyre says insolvency practitioner was appointed to ensure club not ‘illegally trading’’
Which might suggest a problem was recognised and steps taken to rectify it.
============================================
It sounds an awful lot like they were unable to pay their bills as they fell due, given that they didn’t pay the tax bill and it was due. Particularly as the bankers were looking to reduce debt, not to increase it, and they had to sell season tickets in advance to bring money in.
Getting the feck out of dodge, with someone else taking on the liabilities, and including that in the Sales and Purchase Agreement (SPA) must have been their only way out. Whether Whyte actually had the money to make good on the agreement clearly wasn’t a major factor.
Findlay ‘the day you paid the bank back they slammed the doors and wouldn’t even let you use a credit card machine’ (I think this is in response to earlier McIntyre denial that the bank wanted out)
Findlay ‘by the time Craig Whyte came to buy the club it was already facing financial disaster’
Findlay asks witness if he was aware of ‘significant pay rises to senior executives’ in 2011.
Said had been approved by chairman.
2/3
‘Was it financially prudent to give a significant pay rise to one member of the executive’ Findlay asks
McIntyre says was only aware of pay rise when he had to pay it out. Can’t recall it approved by board.
Findlay says he is moving in to his last document, ‘much to the relief of everyone’
HomunculusApril 25, 2017 at 15:10
‘…There is only one place left for the SFA to go, Rangers lied to us.’
____________
If they were make that their defence, then it would surely follow that:
the club languishing in Liquidation would have to be formally expelled from Scottish Football on account of the heinousness of the crime
and that TRFC would have to be formally declared NOT to be RFC and, therefore, NOT entitled to claim even the genuine honours and titles of the defunct RFC
and that the bogus honours/titles of the defunct RFC would have to be expunged from the record books
and that the SFA as any kind of rule making/rule enforcing sports governance body has made a complete arse of itself , and that, as is the case with the FA, the attention of Government should be turned towards it.
For all our sakes.
April 2011 email, Mike McGill From Murray holdings ‘it would appear forecasts for club have deteriorated, we will breach bank facility
This time I can hear a submarine’s klaxon sounding, and ‘Dive, Dive, Dive’! I don’t know where this soundtrack is coming from
Continues
‘Needs a major injection of capital or radical cost cutting’ Asked what he was referring to McIntyre said ‘the club’
Another opportunity for Findlay to ask for clarity about the club thingummy jiggery whatsitcalled, as long as he didn’t mind explaining it to the judge without the use of metaphysics!
Email May 2011 ‘HMRC are no longer willing to wait response from the club. Want £2.8m within 30 days or notice of fine issued’
Fine would have taken the bill to £3.9m Findlay says
Findlay ‘You cost the club £1.8m what kind of financial idiocy is this?’
Findlay notes small shareholders only left ‘with nice certificates for the wall’ after Whyte/Murray deal
Shares were now worth £1 divided by 89 million Findlay says
ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 25, 2017 at 15:34
=====================================
I believe HMRC use a sliding scale of fines (percentage) based on how compliant the taxpayer was during their enquiries.
Clearly the taxpayer wasn’t very helpful on this occasion.
Cross-examination ends. AD to re-examine
woodsteinApril 25, 2017 at 14:22 Does this help? Peace – Not War neepheid November 20, 2016 at 10:24
________________
That’s a great help, thanks. I’ve just picked up on your guidance on ecobhoy’s old osts, and of course it works for me too!
McIntyre says ‘the club was operating as a business’ and had banking facilities.
So! Not the club being operated by a limited company with banking facilities then! How clear does anyone need it? ‘The club operating as a business’ means the club was/is a business, absolutely nothing else is possible.
Unfortunately Mr Findlay is now seated and misses this opportunity to expand on his note from earlier!
John ClarkApril 25, 2017 at 15:41 (Edit)
Not certain John, but I think James Doleman said in that excellent podcast, that speculating on future witnesses is a no no! But there are witnesses I’d love to hear!
Well. That was entertaining.
Wonder how much will be reported in tomorrow’s MSM?
McIntyre notes issues with cash but had assets such as playing squad ‘worth more than £18m’
McIntyre said he believed company could continue to trade, later administration not caused by tax case he notes
McIntyre, David Murray wanted to sell the club to someone who could take the club forward. AD ‘It is a major Scottish Institution’.
McIntyre ends his evidence and leaves the court. No further witnesses today so court adjourns.
Back tomorrow at 10am
Thanks again AJ, very much appreciated.
Wow just wow!
Has the feeling of a busy / exciting day on RTC.
Riveting stuff from James Doleman / AJ / EJ, thanks again.
Strangely coming across a bit like like a hostile takeover – re: withholding / denying access to info – yet Minty must have been desperate for a deal to go through with Whyte / anybody with a spare pound coin ?
And as for the FD, McIntyre ?
Don’t want to put anyone’s liberty at risk on SFM…but have a mental picture of the ‘ex-FD’ with a sweaty, bright red ‘beemer’, and shuffling uncomfortably in his seat – like he’s wearing extremely itchy underwear…
And as for Regan…
neepheid
April 25, 2017 at 15:49
—————————————————
I like sharing things that make life easier.
HomunculusApril 25, 2017 at 16:00 (Edit)
Thanks again AJ, very much appreciated.
——————
Really enjoying James Doleman’s tweets, and would be really frustrated not to be able to comment so have enjoyed posting today. Glad you’ve found it helpful. We are only learning a little bit of new stuff, but it feels good to see that so much of what the internet bampots discovered and passed on has been so accurate. Any ‘journo’ with a shred of self awareness must be feeling like sh*t right now!
Think we need a new emoji.
One that looks like a bus, with a suited SFA CEO being thrown in it’s general direction…
Karma.
Meanwhile…
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39709800
??????
Inside The SPFL @AgentScotland 7m7 minutes ago More
Only one man to follow for the #WhyteTrial @jamesdoleman had 47 tweets regarding this case after lunch compared to @BBCAndrewBlack’s four
———————————————————————————————————–
The above showing how we need guys like James doleman and AJ/EJ so that others don’t get to control the information coming out of court..The BBC report tonight will be worth watching not.
Just in case anyone is not aware of it, can I just clarify where some of the stuff Findlay appears to have been talking about today comes from.
The concept of disclosure now exists in Scotland, has done for a few years. What that means is that in addition to providing the defence with copies of everything they will be leading in evidence as part of their case COPFS are now obliged to disclose two other things.
1, Anything which might hurt their own case, so for example procedures not being followed properly, witnesses they are not using, material they have which tend to hurt their case. They cannot just ignore things which hurts them, they have to tell the defence about it.
2, Anything which might assist the defence’s case. So if Whyte is leading that the business was dead on it’s feet and he was effectively conned into buying the shares and could never have saved it anyway the prosecution must look out anything they have which helps prove that and provide it to the defence.
I listened to James Doleman concerning the High Court trial going on at present on the podcast and would like to thank him for that insight. I have been following all his tweets from the court over the past 2 days and again would like to thank him.
It is all so intriguing and thanks to social media this case seems to be reported without fear or favour. I am going to attend the court on Thursday and Friday of this week, cannot help myself.
The DR report online of today’s proceedings fails to mention the bombshell confirmation of the Wee Tax Case – and the implications about Rangers’ honesty in 2011 – and the implication that the SFA / Regan were complicit.
Thanks goodness we have Bampots to report the whole truth – from a court of law !
STEVIEBC
APRIL 25, 2017 at 17:05
The DR report online of today’s proceedings fails to mention the bombshell confirmation of the Wee Tax Case – and the implications about Rangers’ honesty in 2011 – and the implication that the SFA / Regan were complicit.
Thanks goodness we have Bampots to report the whole truth – from a court of law !
===========================================================
Ditto – BBC Scotland online report, [posted at 5.00PM]
ALLYJAMBO APRIL 25, 2017 at 15:08
‘McIntyre says insolvency practitioner was appointed to ensure club not ‘illegally trading’’ Which might suggest a problem was recognised and steps taken to rectify it.
=========================
The insolvency practitioner appointed will be familiar to you,……. one Bryan Jackson.
EASYJAMBO
APRIL 25, 2017 at 17:22
====================================
He is kind of the go to guy for Scottish football clubs, if you want a proper administration process with the prospect of actually saving the club.
I believe he has dealt with Hearts, Motherwell, Dunfermline and Dundee.
I’m trying to think of any recent administrations in Scotland where he wasn’t used.
The Scotsman has mentioned the discussions with regards administration pre-Whyte.
http://www.scotsman.com/regions/glasgow-strathclyde/rangers-administration-talk-before-craig-whyte-deal-1-4429130
Mr Findlay asked the witness: “Some time after Mr Whyte took over, it is widely known that Rangers Football Club went into administration.
“But what is not perhaps so widely well-known, or what perhaps some people don’t want to be widely well-known, is that the possibility of administration for Rangers was being discussed for a substantial period before the Whyte deal was ever concluded, let alone he took over, that is right, isn’t it?”
Mr McIntyre replied: “I think it would have been remiss of us, given the potential tax burden of EBT, not to have discussions.”
The QC put it to the witness “the possibility of administration for Rangers Football Club was recognised by the board several months before the Whyte deal was concluded, let alone that he took over”.
“Yes,” replied Mr McIntyre.
causaludendiApril 25, 2017 at 16:39 (Edit)
Meanwhile…
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39709800
______________________
Gawd not again!
Don’t they realise, Hearts, Aberdeen, Hibs, Motherwell, Dundee, Dundee United, Brechin…all need £50m to challenge Celtic, and given that money, would have just as much chance of mounting a successful challenge as TRFC would, well, if we discount the ‘honest mistakes’, that is.
This continuous trotting out of ‘Rangers Greats’ to spout nonsensical figures required to make TRFC successful, without a hint of how it might come about, is worse than nauseous! Still, they do need some sort of
at this time. It’s not as though there’s much going on just now that doesn’t require entering the realms of fantasy to write about!
It was a funny sort of day, with a lot of material covered, but I didn’t think Findlay helped the jury too much by jumping from Lloyds, to the wee tax case, to Murray group, back to the wee tax case, then back to Lloyds again etc. etc.
The dates and the content of the minutes and emails is clearly very important to Findlay. I spoke to James Doleman during the break and he said that any document used in court should be available to the press and the public on completion of the trial and they become a matter of public record. I don’t know how you would go about it, but it at least sound like a possible avenue to get access to more complete records.
One email that was mentioned late in the day was one from Mike McGill to Donald McIntyre dated 4 May 2011 (two days before the takeover). It was in relation to the budget forecast for season 2011/12, where McGill indicates that the forecasts had been reworked and the outlook was much worse to the extent that the viability of the club was in question. Findlay didn’t push too much on it (I think he realised that the jury was flagging with an information overload), but it did suggest that Whyte was sold a pig in a poke (but I’m sure both he and the internet bampots were already aware of that).
Interestingly, a pre-pack administration was considered by the Board at one point.
As a footnote, Findlay asked McIntyre about the outcome of the meeting with HMRC on 11 May 2011. McIntyre responded “You’d better ask David Grier”. Findlay simply said “we will”
valentinesclownApril 25, 2017 at 16:47 (Edit)
I listened to James Doleman concerning the High Court trial going on at present on the podcast and would like to thank him for that insight. I have been following all his tweets from the court over the past 2 days and again would like to thank him. It is all so intriguing and thanks to social media this case seems to be reported without fear or favour. I am going to attend the court on Thursday and Friday of this week, cannot help myself.
———-
Jammy b*gger, would love to be able to attend! Despite JD’s excellent coverage, I do wish I could see for myself how the questions are asked and the witnesses demeanour when they answer, or better still, while they search their minds for an answer that doesn’t make them look guilty/naïve/stupid!
I do hope, though, that you don’t find yourself there on the least interesting of days!
easyJamboApril 25, 2017 at 17:22 (Edit)
ALLYJAMBO APRIL 25, 2017 at 15:08‘McIntyre says insolvency practitioner was appointed to ensure club not ‘illegally trading’’ Which might suggest a problem was recognised and steps taken to rectify it. ========================= The insolvency practitioner appointed will be familiar to you,……. one Bryan Jackson.
___________________
Merely a warm up for the main gig
valentinesclown April 25, 2017 at 16:47
I listened to James Doleman concerning the High Court trial going on at present on the podcast and would like to thank him for that insight. I have been following all his tweets from the court over the past 2 days and again would like to thank him. It is all so intriguing and thanks to social media this case seems to be reported without fear or favour. I am going to attend the court on Thursday and Friday of this week, cannot help myself.
=====================
That’s handy because I can’t make Thursday, although I hope to be there tomorrow and Friday.