THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

ByAllyjambo

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

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.

About the author

Allyjambo author

What it says on the tin. My name is Ally. I am a Jambo in exile

1,483 Comments so far

AllyjamboPosted on10:30 am - May 3, 2017


JD:
Findlay asks about a hypothetical company with high turnover but a debt to the bank. Suggests could be restructured, cut costs new income

DH:
Donald Finday asks what if you offer to buy the debt from majority shareholder…is buying a club often about buying the debt?

Correct says Shanks

Me: I think that’s what we’ve all been saying for quite some time!!!!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:33 am - May 3, 2017


JD:
Findlay suggests anyone buying a football club is “in effect buying the debt”Shanks agrees #WhyteTrial
Findlay asks about a hypothetical company with high turnover but a debt to the bank. Suggests could be restructured, cut costs new income

Me: Hmm, pretty much nails the OC/NC debate!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:45 am - May 3, 2017


JD;
Findlay says if his hypothetical company’s bank refused to waive debt could he go to another bank or a financial institution?Shanks agrees
Findlay, “If you have a debt there are various ways to pay it back”Shanks agrees
Shanks agrees after takeover Whyte’s company “Wavetower” became the “owner of the debt and could treat it how they wished”#WhyteTrial
Findlay shows witness extracts from “various emails”#WhyteTrial

DH:
Court shown email to David Greer. Worked for MCR, adviser to Craig Whyte

JD:
1st email to David Grier, who the witness says worked for MCR and advised Whyte on his takeover. Mail is from Phil Betts, another advisor
Email states “the bank wants to charge a termination fee of £1.5m” on the term loan.#WhyteTrial

DH:
non disclosure agreements were signed between us. Told club’s indebtedness to bank of £25.5m on 23.1.11

JD:
Shanks tells court he cannot explain the termination fee comment, “it’s the first time I’ve seen this” Judge intervenes
Shanks says there was no discussion of a termination fee, but there was a £1m cost to close the interest rate “hedge” facility

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:48 am - May 3, 2017


David Henderson tweeting quite fast, so difficult to keep up with both sets of tweets, he seems quite accurate with James’s tweets so will only post if materially different or he catches something James misses.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:54 am - May 3, 2017


DH:
DF: anything sinister in negotiating deals with hmrc? Nothing at all says Ian Shanks

JD:
Findlay returns to emails. 7 April 2011 from witness to his manager at Lloyds. Proceedings delayed as Lady Stacey does not have copy
Findlay says matter not important, moves on to 13 April 2011, witness to his boss “Martin Bain is seeking compensation for losing his job”
Continues Alistair Johnson is happy to pay this, other board members not so supportive

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:11 am - May 3, 2017


JD:
Next email, Shanks to manager, 15 April 2011: “negotiation continues over reps and warranties, we are resisting”Not unusual witness says
Shanks says the asset finance was secured on the Albion Rd carpark Email says will charge a £75k fee after 9 months to continue
Shanks says reason for fee was that car park was worth less than loan
Email continues “if this will hold up the deal we’ll take this off the table” Shanks: without pressure “no reason for Craig to refinance
Email continues “Johnson and some of his board members are delaying the deal to put their own bid in..we are frustrated..”1/2
“we will withdraw our finance.. Johnson may be personally liable” “We were playing tough” witness says
Email “If Craig wanted to put the club into administration..the process would be quick.. hopefully allow Craig to keep control of club”
Findlay: if insolvency event occured a major creditor could put club into administration tax debt becomes inconsequential”Shanks “correct”
Shanks “This was written in context of having a deal with Craig,” says board could have put club into administration.
Findlay suggests that control of the club could be retained through administrationShanks “correct”
Lady Stacey asks if HMRC would not have a preferential status as a creditor?Findlay says he is not a tax lawyer
Witness says secured debt to the bank would be paid before HMRC and “if there was no money left” they would get nothing

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:13 am - May 3, 2017


Oops, spacing above not good, must do better 18

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:24 am - May 3, 2017


JD:Shanks says Paul Murray’s proposal to buy the club “involved new money but we didn’t know where it was from… unacceptable to us”

Email 21 April, Shanks to his manager, term loan assigned to Whyte, Rangers board advised” Findlay: “there is nothing they could do about it

Email 28 April, “concern about board trying to put club into administration before Mr Whyte takes over”

Findlay on the Rangers board: “Dithering uncertainty”
Shanks “Those are fair comments”

DH:

Ian Shanks says Craig Whyte offer was better in several ways. Paul’s proposal did not say where funds came from. Murray wanted….

…renegotiation with the bank. But Ian Shanks says the bank wanted out.

Email 4.5.11 after wobble from board they now accept deal with Craig Whyte p. although they won’t back it publicly.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:33 am - May 3, 2017


Summary:  The board (being Johnson on behalf of King) have suddenly realised what is possible via an admin (I’d love to see an email from Regan just about this time, interestingly within days of the euro licence as well!) but as long as the bank are involved with their security they (the board) are stymied.  They need a patsy on board sharpish to retain the assets long term by repaying the bank but will need to find a way to ‘out’ him fairly quickly thereafter if they are to retain control.

Aint hindsight a great thing!

 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:33 am - May 3, 2017


DH:
Findlay “negotiations appear to have been going on through the media”?Shanks: “Correct” #WhyteTrial

Email “David Murray is leaning on Alistair Johnson”Shanks “correct”

Shanks agrees that to keep the Rangers board “quiet” cutting of finance “was an option”

Findlay “There was a benefit to the Murray group in getting rid of Rangers?”Shanks “Correct”

Shanks says bank had decided to “get out of Rangers” from beginning of Project Charlotte.

DH:
IS says no pressure on Rangers to do deal. But DF says there was incentive on Murray people to conclude deal and benefit to Murray Group.

DF: Email highlights pressure being brought to bear on board from various directions – David Murray, bank to conclude deal.

Me: My bolds. Something else we all ‘knew’, but the bears (self) denied!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:36 am - May 3, 2017


JD:
Findlay “the bank wanted the Murray group to sell Rangers to reduce the debt”

Court adjourns for morning break#WhyteTrial

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:20 pm - May 3, 2017


DH
Jury returns to court. Defence QC Donald Findlay continues his cross-examination of former Lloyds executive Ian Shanks #WhyteTrial

Shanks says after deal completed bank transferred it’s floating charge to Wavetower.

Findlay “Do banks do credit checks?”Shanks “Yes”

Findlay returns to issue of Murray Metals he raised yesterdayWitness shown his email 21 April 2011 1/2

Email “metals business could be spun out to David after he sells his shares in Rangers”Witness confirms David is David Murray

Witness confirms sale of metals business to David Murray was conditional on sale of his Rangers shared and repayment of clubs debt
*shares*

Findlay suggests metals business was important to David Murray personally as it was “where he got started” #WhyteTrial

Findlay suggests board could have signed Messi and Ronaldo on “ridiculous money” and saddled new owner with the bill.#WhyteTrial

View Comment

TincksPosted on12:28 pm - May 3, 2017


Email “metals business could be spun out to David after he sells his shares in Rangers”Witness confirms David is David Murray
Witness confirms sale of metals business to David Murray was conditional on sale of his Rangers shared and repayment of clubs debt
*shares*

Well I never

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:33 pm - May 3, 2017


Shanks says Murray Group could have called an EGM to remove Rangers board members if they refused to resign.#WhyteTrial

Findlay suggests there would be a benefit to David Murray from sale of Rangers Shanks “That was always the agreement in Project Charlotte”

Findlay “the other shareholders are getting nothing?’Shanks: “If you put it like that”Findlay: “I just did”#WhyteTrial

DH:
DF: It appears there’s going to be a benefit to Murray from sale of Rangers. ‘We’d always agreed he could have Metals. He’d have to sell R.

DF: would that not be something the Takeover panel should have known about?

IS: it was always the case that Murray would get MM but after sale of Rangers

DF: suggests bank got into not good position. There was a benefit, he says that would occur conditional on sale of shares and debt.

IS “there was an incentive. Correct, though not the same as offered to Muir and McGill

View Comment

TincksPosted on12:33 pm - May 3, 2017


Findlay “the other shareholders are getting nothing?’
Shanks: “If you put it like that”
Findlay: “I just did”

Sharp 10 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:50 pm - May 3, 2017


JD:
Donald Findlay cant find hard copy of document, says “we’ll work with the electric version”

Findlay “Rangers was sold for a pound, for nothing for all practical purposes”Shanks agrees #WhyteTrial

Court now looking at agreement between the bank and Murray on sale of shares” Findlay “What’s the D.R.A.G?”Shanks doesn’t know

Findlay “If Murray group got rid of Rangers David Murray could get his metals business back for a pound?”Shanks agrees#WhyteTrial

Court being shown a letter David Murray sent to Shanks. Notes debt reduction at Rangers has “exceeded expectations” due to ECL participation

DH:
Court heard. The agreement shown to the court was unsigned but dated April 2010. IS does not recall the date of signing.

DF: 1st quarter 2010 a deal for Sir David to get the metals business provided Rangers was sold & bank debt paid. IS: correct

An Amendment to the deal seems to have been signed by Michael McGill on 23.7.10

Amendment says there’s an Amendment but we don’t see what it’s former Rangers manager!

No clear information about what the amendment to the deal actually does! very legalistic.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:01 pm - May 3, 2017


JD:
Letter continues with a request from Murray to “immediately release the metals business from MIH”

Letter signed “Sir David E Murray”

Lloyd’s reply to Murray letter now being shown Is dated 21 Jan 2011.Denies request to sell metals business to Murray unless.1/2

Unless “RFC is sold prior to the end of April..as previously agreed” #WhyteTrial

Findlay “If the Rangers deal is done the metals business is released for £1?”Shanks “That’s one way yes”1/2

Findlay “only way to be sure is do deal for Rangers before the end of April?”Shanks “Correct”

Findlay “There was no benefit to minority shareholders..they get nothing”Shanks “correct”

Court adjourns for lunch
#WhyteTrial

View Comment

TincksPosted on1:07 pm - May 3, 2017


Sterling work AJ.

Oh what a tangled web………….

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:10 pm - May 3, 2017


Forgetting football for a moment:

“Findlay “If the Rangers deal is done the metals business is released for £1?”Shanks “That’s one way yes”1/2
Findlay “only way to be sure is do deal for Rangers before the end of April?”Shanks “Correct”

Findlay “There was no benefit to minority shareholders..they get nothing”Shanks “correct””

Imagine that, the only benefit that anyone gets from the ‘sale’ of Rangers was to the very man who created the mess in the first place! Capitalism at it’s ugliest!

And I bet that pound coin never made it’s way into any charity box! Unless it was tax deductible, of course!

View Comment

TincksPosted on1:20 pm - May 3, 2017


AJ,

Will be very interested to see how, if at all this is reported in the MSM and the Bears reaction to it.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:56 pm - May 3, 2017


jimboMay 3, 2017 at 13:42 (Edit)

With my experience of court proceeding being mainly, like most people, confined to TV courtroom dramas, I can only suggest that what we are seeing just now is each side setting the scene for what came next – I won’t comment on who seems to be coming out on top. I am sure, though, that some of what has been said will have a bearing later.

Some people have questioned why the prosecution would lead with the witnesses they have, but I believe it may be tactical, particularly in a long trial, to have certain people present their evidence early (and so forgettable) rather than leave it to the defence to call them at a point in the trial that suits them more.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on1:58 pm - May 3, 2017


I have found myself saying it quite a lot this past week or so, and I don’t think I will be impeaching on any legal territory by saying it publicly on here…..
   “Ooooooooft !!!”

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on2:05 pm - May 3, 2017


I  believe that there was something of an aggrieved backlash by many of the Sevco persuasion to a scene in Trainspotting showing a Loyalist anti Catholic sing song. This was dehumanising and “no right” 
Today there is a video in the ESJ showing such an anti Catholic singalong prior to the Saturday’s game. This bore close resemblance to the scene in the film.
The poor are with us always and the folk signing that song are going to be left further behind both historically and economically. Where is their hope, and I mean that in the widest of senses?
Poor buggers

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on2:17 pm - May 3, 2017


Safety netting

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/05/03/redacted/

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:27 pm - May 3, 2017


JD:
Donald Findlay QC to continue his cross-examination of former Lloyds executive Ian Shanks#WhyteTrial

Findlay asks the witness “if you have an overdraft whose money is it?’Shanks: “the bank’s”1/2

Findlay suggests that although the money is the bank’s the person with the overdraft can do what they choose with the money

Findlay says that although the money is the bank’s it would still be reasonable to describe it as “your money” as you control it

Shanks says the money belongs to “who has it at the time” #WhyteTrial

Witness now shown a 4 May 2011 letter from Lloyd’s bank to Rangers board. Delay as Lady Stacey does not have document in her folder

DH:
DF: technically speaking you’re not supposed to operate a business if its insolvent. IS correct.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:30 pm - May 3, 2017


It is always good to go back to the basic principle that it is entirely a matter for the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty of the offence of which he is accused. The defence to not have to prove anything, all they have to do is cast sufficient (reasonable) doubt in the minds of the jury. 

Part of that doubt can be the credibility of the witnesses called by the prosecution. It is a common enough tactic, basically asking the jury “do you believe what this man is actually telling you, or do you have some doubt”.

As we have discussed before and as seems to be the case just now, Findlay appears to be painting the picture that if anyone has been conned (or duped) here it is actually his client. 

I believe Findlay may go down the line of “If my client committed fraud then who was the victim”. Murray got what he wanted and the bank got what they wanted so who did he defraud. 

The only people I can think of are possibly Ticketus. However as far as I am aware Ticketus also got what they wanted at the time. The season tickets at a discount. The fact that all went bad later when administration and liquidation occurred and the Court of Session ruled they had no special rights is really a separate matter than when he took control of the club. It has been dealt with through the civil courts. 

He lied to everyone, but does that actually constitute fraud if no-one actually lost out, and put frankly, they appear to have lied to him as well. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:36 pm - May 3, 2017


JD:
Letter “in connection with proposed sale, as far as we are concerned £1 is the sole consideration for the sale of RFC, no benefit to Murray”

Findlay suggests “That doesn’t square with what we heard this morning.”Shanks “no benefit to MHL”Findlay “That’s splitting hairs”

“If the subsidiary company gets a benefit doesnt the holding company get a benefit?”Shanks “To the Murray group there was”

Findlay says the letter “is not the whole picture is it?”Shanks “It’s what is says”Findlay “I know, I can read it”

DH:
DF: If technically this is right it’s not the whole picture is it? IS it’s what I was asked to write as part of the transaction to sell R.

IS accepts the letter is not the whole picture

View Comment

jimboPosted on2:46 pm - May 3, 2017


ej,  this would seem to confirm your assertion:
“Findlay says he is giving the witness a chance to give his position on issues that may arise later in the case”

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:50 pm - May 3, 2017


JD:
Findlay says he is moving on to “The bank’s relationship with the Rangers board”

Email from Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnson to Rangers board, Jan 2011Complains about bank “stringent application’ of financial agreement

Findlay says he is giving the witness a chance to give his position on issues that may arise later in the case

Johnson draft letter “we are all masquerading as directors..now acting as stooges to pay back the debt..club throttled into submission”

Shanks says he agrees bank had a “difficult relationship” with the Rangers board #WhyteTrial

Letter goes on “The bank has prudently written off the debt”Shanks “We had a legal duty to pursue the money”

Letter continues “The carnage left by Lloyd’s policies and the impoverished remains of Rangers Football Club”

Letter points to “Calamitous decline in season ticket sales..bank doesn’t understand.’

Findlay “if the board had sold a player for £20m would the bank demand bet repaid?”Shanks “We were not taking every penny’

Shanks denies club was facing a “financial catastrophy” says ‘club still operating’

Johnson letter “bank has a blind spot on the methods needed to run a football club..an astonishing lack of understanding”

DH:
Update from AJ re dealings with the bank. Attached is a draft letter to IS. Unsigned

IS doesn’t recognise the letter. DF says he’s interested in sentiment…It talks of his unreasonable aspirations re credit with bank

It talks of board masquerading as board while acting as stooges paying down debt

It talks of concern that the club would be throttled into submission as a result of debt reduction obligations

IS  not reasonable. We had a deal with the club to reduce debt but agreed sharing of money which club could use

His draft letter refers to the carnage left in the wake of Lloyds policies

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:56 pm - May 3, 2017


JD:
Letter “The consequence will be the club falling into administration”Shanks says not true

Findlay “An English bank wouldn’t want to put a Scottish institution into administration”

Letter “Board will announce publically we have signed credit agreement under duress”

Shanks says he doesn’t recall receiving the letter but is not saying he didn’t

Letter 24 Jan 2011, Martin Bain to Shanks “Another letter of complaint” Findlay describes as “it’s not my fault guv it’s the bank’s fault”

Me: A big guy done it and ran away 10

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:02 pm - May 3, 2017


Shanks support Chelsea too?

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on3:13 pm - May 3, 2017


Shanks denies club was facing a “financial catastrophy” says ‘club still operating’
Really Mr Shanks??? Notice DF never challenged that statement!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:20 pm - May 3, 2017


Witness being shown transcript of interview with Alistair Johnson says he was told “The Murray group is heavily incentiveised to sell club”

Johnson interview continues “The bank wanted all the money, they wouldn’t let Rangers off..it would be a precedent. blah blah blah ‘

Johnson interview “I was told if acts would be performed on me that hadn’t been performed on anyone in Scotland since 15th century’1/2

Findlay comments “The mind boggles”

Shanks says he “can’t comment on the 15th century thing”Last Stacey “You can comment if you said that”Shanks “I never said that”1/2

Shanks adds “I did say I would withdraw the credit line”Findlay “It’s fantastical nonsense isn’t it”

Findlay on Johnson “He was extending his chief executive’s contract, giving him pay rises and talking nonsense about 15th century?”Agreed

Johnson interview on bank “You have allowed this debt to run up, you have lent Rangers more than they can pay back”1/2

Findlay notes bank’s do not go “knocking on people’s doors offering loans” witness agrees someone would have to ask

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:23 pm - May 3, 2017


Johnson interview “My view was..bank should migrate Rangers debt to Murray group..more chance of getting it back”

Findlay says Johnson was saying “take the debt off me and give it to David Murray”Shanks says “legally we can’t do that”

Johnson Interview “It just blew my mind they wouldn’t do that” also suggests if tax case lost Murray should pay

Johnson interview was on the radio in 2012 court told

Findlay “this is his (Johnson’s) revisionist view of what happened in 2011..it was nonsense then and nonsense later”

Slight delay as another document appears that be missingCourt takes short break

View Comment

jimboPosted on3:25 pm - May 3, 2017


More missing documents!  Very amateurish.  I watched the case at the Supreme court and they all had a mountain of bundles, so much so that there were many gaps in proceedings to allow time for all involved to locate them as they were discussed.  But I don’t remember any missing.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:30 pm - May 3, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
MAY 3, 2017 at 13:10
 …
“Findlay “If the Rangers deal is done the metals business is released for £1?”Shanks “That’s one way yes”
1/2Findlay “only way to be sure is do deal for Rangers before the end of April?”Shanks “Correct”
Findlay “There was no benefit to minority shareholders..they get nothing”Shanks “correct””…
=============================

Hmmm

Wonder if this will be revisited with another witness on the stand ?

And I wonder what the Minority Shareholders think ?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:37 pm - May 3, 2017


Johnson interview continues “The bank wanted all the money, they wouldn’t let Rangers off..it would be a precedent. blah blah blah ‘

Thank goodness we went for the immortal club surviving liquidation option instead.  That’s much more believable with far less consequences as a precedent in my opinion.

Now where’s the —-NNNNNNNNOT!!!!!! emoticon gone?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:51 pm - May 3, 2017


Jury come back into court, Donald Findlay rises to continue cross-examination#WhyteTrial

Witness shown document, letter Oct 2009 bank letter to RFC Directors

Letter sets our details of loan and banking facilities available to Rangers Football Club.#WhyteTrial

Shanks says email was written by his predecessor, is to Alistair Johnson then chairman1/?

Email “There seems to be a belief that the club can operate beyond its means with impunity”

Email calls budget “not a supportable strategy” as assumes Champions League entry every year for 3 years

“This state of affairs reflects very badly on the executive management of the club”

“Raises considerable concerns about their ability to deal with this very difficult situation” no “culture of prudent financial management”

Findlay “We have a chairman who will blame anyone other than himself”Shanks “Correct”

Shanks says he thinks financial situation was “manageable” in 2011. Findlay “Thanks to the bank?”Shanks “No extra money put in”

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:51 pm - May 3, 2017


StevieBCMay 3, 2017 at 15:30
‘……..And I wonder what the Minority Shareholders think ?’
________________________________
They have been astonishingly silent since day one.
Even more astonishing has been the silence of those former season-ticket debenture holders, who lost their season-ticket rights as well as their loans. They surely couldn’t all have been merely cynical business people who thought it useful to be able to claim to be Ibrox season-ticket holders, who think it politic now not to complain?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:53 pm - May 3, 2017


Findlay “Rangers board were doing very little internally to improve their situation”Shanks “Agreed”

Findlay “My Whyte came in with the only plausible bid?”Shanks “Agreed”

Findlay “One final matter Mr Shanks and I will leave you in peace”

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:00 pm - May 3, 2017


Witness shown email he sent to Martin Bain 3 Sept 2010
1. Debt target for 2011£18m
2. To secure Jelovic, Rapid Vienna want cash guarantee

Email shows Jelavic transfer backed by loan from Ticketus, “not to appear on accounts”

Findlay says hidden from shareholders?Shanks “Not in accounts’Findlay “They hid the use of Ticketus?”Shanks “Yes”

Email continues bank demand to take further money from Ticketus to reduce debt

Findlay “As a matter of principle Ticketus money could be used to pay back debt?”Shanks “Yes”Cross-examination ends

View Comment

TincksPosted on4:03 pm - May 3, 2017


Witness shown email he sent to Martin Bain 3 Sept 20101. Debt target for 2011 £18m2. To secure Jelovic, Rapid Vienna want cash guarantee

Email shows Jelavic transfer backed by loan from Ticketus, “not to appear on accounts”

Findlay says hidden from shareholders?Shanks “Not in accounts’Findlay “They hid the use of Ticketus?”Shanks “Yes”

Email continues bank demand to take further money from Ticketus to reduce debt

Findlay “As a matter of principle Ticketus money could be used to pay back debt?”Shanks “Yes”Cross-examination ends

Mr Findlay’s minions have been doing their research 14

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:04 pm - May 3, 2017


Stuff hidden in accounts! I hope EJ will be along soon with his appraisal of what that might mean!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:12 pm - May 3, 2017


A link to PMGB’s latest blog on his FOI appeal to GCC. Quite interesting.

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/05/03/redacted-2/

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:18 pm - May 3, 2017


Advocate Depute rises to re-examine, withess confirms bank not a party to share purchase agreementShanks “Don’t believe so”

AD “Your information is third hand”Shanks “Correct”

Witness confirms Lloyd’s had a duty to its own shareholders and employees#WhyteTrial

Witness repeats bank was not interested in source of Whyte’s funds “as long as it was legal”

AD notes Rangers had debt but also assets, #WhyteTrial

Shanks says he believed the sale to Craig Whyte would lead to a favourable outcome for all parties

Shanks says he understood Rangers used Ticketus on an annual basis for working capital

AD suggests Whyte was not a director of Rangers and had no right to enter into a relationship with Ticketus on club’s behalf

Re-examination ends. Shanks steps down from witness box.Court adjourns until 10 am tomorrow#WhyteTrial

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on4:26 pm - May 3, 2017


ALLYJAMBO MAY 3, 2017 at 16:04 
Stuff hidden in accounts! I hope EJ will be along soon with his appraisal of what that might mean!
==================
I haven’t  been following things diligently today because of other commitments. 

I think the accounts reference relates to transactions that effectively cancel on another out within the same reporting period.

e.g. if my club borrowed £5m from Ticketus n March and paid it back in May does it need to be disclosed? Probably not but it is poor governance from the directors not to disclose this to shareholders. If the loan was necessary  to cover a cash flow shortage then I would have thought that the auditors would be all over it too. What if the transaction wasn’t disclosed to the auditors either?  I would find that surprising given that there would be a cost to the club from using the service. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:40 pm - May 3, 2017


easyJamboMay 3, 2017 at 16:26 (Edit)

Thanks for the reply, EJ. However they worked it, it’s still apparent that they wanted to hide the transaction (from someone/some people), and whatever the reason for hiding it, it can’t be good. Hopefully the reason, and how they achieved it, will come out later.

I have an idea of what DF was getting at with this line of questioning, but better not include it on the blog (whether it’s right or pure mince).

View Comment

TincksPosted on4:41 pm - May 3, 2017


AllyjamboMay 3, 2017 at 15:51 
Jury come back into court, Donald Findlay rises to continue cross-examination#WhyteTrial
Witness shown document, letter Oct 2009 bank letter to RFC Directors
Letter sets our details of loan and banking facilities available to Rangers Football Club.#WhyteTrial
Shanks says email was written by his predecessor, is to Alistair Johnson then chairman1/?
Email “There seems to be a belief that the club can operate beyond its means with impunity”
Email calls budget “not a supportable strategy” as assumes Champions League entry every year for 3 years
———————————————————————————-
All of which brings us back to the SFA, (and by that I mean the clubs) and Financial Fair Play.

With the death of Rangers (IL) and the near death experience of Hearts and others surely for goodness sake those persons who are supposed to safeguard the wellbeing of the national sport must understand the imperative to act.  To put in place, and fairly/equitably enforce a regime of FFP rules and regulations so as to ensure that the businesses that operate in the Scottish league structure do so in a prudent and sustainable manner.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:43 pm - May 3, 2017


Interesting stuff in court today.

Findlay doing a good job in showing what a shambles the oldco were.
I can see where he is going but the last few questions from the AD gets to the hub of the matter. 
It is all very well talking about principles and if others may or may have taken similar actions. However the matter comes down to what was legal and, in  this circumstance, how the jury sees it.

It all reminds me of a story from an old work place were a bloke had the offer of a promotion but this was conditional on being at the right level of membership of a professional body.

However, the professional body required that to get accepted at the required level, the applicant had to hold a position of responsibility of the type that was being offered by the promoted post.

The bloke then sent two letters off at the same time one saying to the professional body he had the promotion and one to the employer saying he had gained the required level of membership.

Problem solved but a white lie told to reach the desired outcome.

View Comment

Cygnus X-1Posted on4:44 pm - May 3, 2017


It’s perhaps instructive to recall from a football perspective, that RFC had two £4m strikers in their ranks, from 2008-2011. Kyle Lafferty was the other one, whereas my team and every other club in Scottish Football didn’t.

Today we learned in court to seal the Jelavic deal, RFC borrowed money from Ticketus, which wasn’t disclosed in the accounts. Isn’t that a sporting advantage, especially when they knew the wolf was at the door, and the entire Murray edifice, was in the process of collapsing and they couldn’t possibly repay this debt, if it was called in?
 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:51 pm - May 3, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
MAY 3, 2017 at 15:51 … Oct 2009 bank letter to RFC Directors

Email “There seems to be a belief that the club can operate beyond its means with impunity”
Email calls budget “not a supportable strategy” as assumes Champions League entry every year for 3 years…
====================================================

Hmmm…

Wonder what the ‘Euro-license issuing SFA’ thinks about that observation – made by a bank in 2009 ?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:07 pm - May 3, 2017


JOHN CLARKMAY 3, 2017 at 15:51
‘……..And I wonder what the Minority Shareholders think ?’________________________________They have been astonishingly silent since day one.Even more astonishing has been the silence of those former season-ticket debenture holders, who lost their season-ticket rights as well as their loans. They surely couldn’t all have been merely cynical business people who thought it useful to be able to claim to be Ibrox season-ticket holders, who think it politic now not to complain?
——————-
They did get a vote to change the name of sevco scotland ltd to the rangers football club, did they not. But i have not heard much from them since

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:55 pm - May 3, 2017


WRT Phil’s latest on a suspected, suspect stadium…

Why would a major high street bank, the governing body [i.e. regulators] of Scottish football, and Glasgow City Council throw caution to the wind when dealing with one particular football club ? 

Good business practices, proper application of the rules, public safety…seemed to be ‘optional’ ?

And why would any individual put themselves at personal risk for accommodating a ‘customer’s demands’ ?!

Hmmm…   09 

View Comment

TincksPosted on7:20 pm - May 3, 2017


Looks like PMG getting somewhere with his enquiries into the Ibrox roof issues.  Several posts on the matter in the last 24 hours.  Latest below.

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/05/03/ongoing-investigation/

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:58 pm - May 3, 2017


As at the above time, still nothing from the football authorities about the incidents at Ibrox on Saturday.
And this is after 3 individuals have already pled guilty.

1) The SFA
The last article under their ‘News’ website section is: 
“News
Scott Brown claim of wrongful dismissal upheld
Thursday, 27 April 2017”

2) The SPFL
Their website does carry a brief summary of the game, but no mention at all of any incidents.

The authorities looking the other way – again – and acting like nothing untoward happened at all at Ibrox ?!

11

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:13 pm - May 3, 2017


CYGNUS X-1MAY 3, 2017 at 16:44   
Today we learned in court to seal the Jelavic deal, RFC borrowed money from Ticketus, which wasn’t disclosed in the accounts. Isn’t that a sporting advantage, especially when they knew the wolf was at the door, and the entire Murray edifice, was in the process of collapsing and they couldn’t possibly repay this debt, if it was called in?

======================================
I believe Celtic were also interested in Jelavic, but opted against the deal because it was not within their budget.  Jelavic made a really significant contribution to Rangers title win in 2011. Yet when they were liquidated a significant chunk of his fee was still due to Rapid Vienna. Also, can accounts be declared properly audited if borrowings are not disclosed in them?

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on8:15 pm - May 3, 2017


STEVIEBCMAY 3, 2017 at 19:58 
As at the above time, still nothing from the football authorities about the incidents at Ibrox on Saturday.And this is after 3 individuals have already pled guilty.
     ——————————————————————————
 A wee update Stevie

https://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug/status/859800914043035648

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:34 pm - May 3, 2017


CORRUPT OFFICIALMAY 3, 2017 at 20:15
 A wee update Stevie
https://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug/stat
————–
This will be reviewed alongside reports,if any, 
From the police (they did make an arrest, so should be reported)
The Referee( he was helping scott Brown with  a fan that was on the pitch,so should be in his report)
IF ANY03….if these and more are not in reports,someone is not doing their jobs right. They are well highlighted the incidents we will now wait and see what kind of punishment if any is forthcoming

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:43 pm - May 3, 2017


CORRUPT OFFICIAL
MAY 3, 2017 at 20:15 
STEVIEBCMAY 3, 2017 at 19:58 As at the above time, still nothing from the football authorities about the incidents at Ibrox on Saturday.And this is after 3 individuals have already pled guilty.     —————————————————————————— 
A wee update Stevie
https://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug/status/859800914043035648
=====================================

Thanks for that CO.

Yet still no mention of this on the SPFL website itself.

And no mention under their ‘Press Releases’ website section either.

But Chris McLaughlin is quoting an “SPFL Statement”.

Odd.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on8:43 pm - May 3, 2017


easyJamboMay 3, 2017 at 10:11 
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) May 3, 2017 at 10:00  Good morning all. not been as active on the site lately as I would like.Grandparent duties seem to be more time consuming than I thought . Trying to keep up to date though. Thought it may be of interest to some that it appears someone has successfully petitioned the court to have MIH(IL) re-instated at Companies House,9 months after being put into liquidation. ============================== I have an hour or two off grandparenting duties just now before a nursery pickup, so I’m catching up too.
That is an odd one re MIH.  There is no indication on the document of who has requested that the company be reactivated, or why.  Perhaps it’s been in Bill Miller’s incubator for the last few months, and is ready to emerge as a healthy new company having been cleansed of its tarnished past, not to mention £700m of debt.
===================================
Sorry for taking a while to get back,EJ.If I’ve mastered this link pasting thing you may find some more info here:

https://t.co/ZZUECmsdur

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:19 pm - May 3, 2017


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)May 3, 2017 at 20:43
https://t.co/ZZUECmsdur
=====================
The link is fine 04.  Doesn’t help much though.  I did a search for the person named on the form earlier but came up with a blank.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:33 pm - May 3, 2017


WOTTPI
MAY 3, 2017 at 16:43
====================================

Analogous with escrow if you will*.

Who is the loser in your analogy. I would suggest no-one. 

The person gets the job he wants.

The employer gets the person they want.

The professional body get a new member who meets their requirements.

How can it be fraud if everyone involved gets what they want out of it. 

*Was the payment from Ticketus to Whyte not conditional on him getting control of the majority shares in Rangers. Was the sale to Whyte not conditional on him having a certain amount of money to pay LBG etc. Was an escrow account used to achieve this. 

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on9:46 pm - May 3, 2017


TORREJOHNBHOY(@JOHNBHOY1958)MAY 3, 2017 at 20:43
    easyJamboMay 3, 2017 at 10:11 torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) May 3, 2017 at 10:00 Good morning all. not been as active on the site lately as I would like.Grandparent duties seem to be more time consuming than I thought . Trying to keep up to date though. Thought it may be of interest to some that it appears someone has successfully petitioned the court to have MIH(IL) re-instated at Companies House,9 months after being put into liquidation
    —————————————————————————————————————————
  There were several similar (though not identical) toings and froings with Sevco 5088, (remember them?)which led to various speculations as to why TJB. 
   I can’t recall reading if that has been resolved yet

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:27 pm - May 3, 2017


Homunculus @ 21.33

Apart from Gary Withey’s insurers you mean?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:31 pm - May 3, 2017


And in other news I note that the days events in court whereby David Murray threw the club under the bus to line his own pocket is being reported as…..

Rangers throttled into submission by bank 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:44 pm - May 3, 2017


Actually no, credit where its due.  I now see the BBC are leading (anonymously) with a decent stab at the intricacies of what was discussed today.  And nobody was getting throttled!!!

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on10:51 pm - May 3, 2017


Do we no have a funny handshake smiley?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:52 pm - May 3, 2017


easyJamboMay 3, 2017 at 21:19
“torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)May 3, 2017 at 20:43https://t.co/ZZUECmsdur=====================The link is fine 04. Doesn’t help much though. I did a search for the person named on the form earlier but came up with a blank.”
________
I wish someone could devise an app that could automatically let us know as soon as  any court business that  touches on anything to do with SDM,the presently defunct RFC, the RIFC/TRFC is posted on the ‘Court rolls’ pages!

Why would ‘Samantha Thomson’ want MIH brought out of limbo? 

Other than, obviously, being interested in a business that was SDM’s, is she connected in any way with the saga?

Is she a creditor of MIH?? Is she a potential purchaser, on her own account? or on behalf, ultimately, of a failed business man?

All kinds of dark suspicions can arise in innocent and ignorant minds such as mine.

If the SC verdict goes in favour of RFC(IL) , would it be possible for the owner of the now restored MIH to make a bid for the deeply troubled TRFC/RIFC?

Not yet quite recovered from jet-lag, and the old brain is puzzled.

Might we expect in the fullness of time a petition to the courts to have RFC restored to the Register of Companies?

Is it possible that there might after all be an exceeedingly long game being played out?

John Grisham, where are you?19

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on11:03 pm - May 3, 2017


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/05/03/exclusive-rangers-chairman-glasgow-old-firm-derbies-despite/

As it happens, King should have been a participant at another high-profile drama which is engrossing Rangers fans. He was cited as a witness in the trial at the High Court in Glasgow of Craig Whyte, who is alleged to have gained ownership of the club by fraudulent means in May 2011.

His participation was kept quiet in order to avoid what would likely have been intense media and public interest. However, having flown to Scotland the day after Rangers’ defeat by Celtic in the Scottish Cup, King was then informed that his presence in court was no longer required.
=================================

What happened twixt him being cited as a witness and it being decided he was no longer required.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:17 pm - May 3, 2017


HOMUNCULUSMAY 3, 2017 at 21:33

H – agreed it suited the main parties but with regards to who actually got hurt  today we were reminded of the small shareholders and of course subsequently we know how it worked out for debenture holders, creditors, face painters etc.

As discussed I think Findlay made his points well for the benefit of the jury but at the end of the day I expect the AD will return to the matter of what he views as being technically correct and acceptable in such dealings with regard to the law of the land.

Still a long way to go on this one but certainly another day from this never ending saga when we added to our education and knowledge about how the world of banking and business works .

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on11:26 pm - May 3, 2017


WOTTPIMAY 3, 2017 at 23:17 

H – agreed it suited the main parties but with regards to who actually got hurt  today we were reminded of the small shareholders and of course subsequently we know how it worked out for debenture holders, creditors, face painters etc.

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

Surely they lost out when the company was liquidated.

At the very earliest when it went into liquidation.

Not when Whyte bought the shares. Which as I understand it is when the offence he is accused of is alleged to have taken place.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:16 am - May 4, 2017


HomunculusMay 3, 2017 at 23:03
‘..As it happens, King should have been a participant at another high-profile drama which is engrossing Rangers fans. He was cited as a witness in the trial at the High Court in Glasgow of Craig Whyte, who is alleged to have gained ownership of the club by fraudulent means in May 2011.
He flew back to South Africa on Wednesday but it is understood that he met Stewart Regan, the SFA chief executive, for an informal discussion on general topics, before heading back.’
‘What happened twixt him being cited as a witness and it being decided he was no longer required.’
______________________
Tremendously well-spotted, Homunculus.

I wonder whether Regan might have tactfully suggested  to King, on behalf of the SFA board, that he should bloody well get the hell out of RIFC?

Or might he have respectfully saluted and humbly asked King for guidance on how the SFA can help?

As for King being any kind of witness , surely no one in his right mind would believe a word of what a ‘glib etc.. ‘ might swear to, whatever testimony he might give!
Roddy’s motives?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:19 am - May 4, 2017


SmugasMay 3, 2017 at 22:44
‘..Actually no, credit where its due. I now see the BBC are leading (anonymously) with a decent stab at the intricacies of what was discussed today. ‘
_________
Smugas, you have perfectly exemplified the fundamental  basic honesty that makes SFM so preciously unlike so many other blogs.
Every serious poster on SFM aims never to state an untruth; and is quick to correct anything he/she might have said in a post when he/she  learns that he/she might have not been quite right or up-to-date.
In my 5 year knowledge of RTC/SFM, every serious poster has always been ready to qualify what he/she has to say, and has been entirely open to correction in matters of fact that they might have got wrong, and always makes a sharp distinction between known fact and their speculation about what the known facts might signify.
The speculation is, of course, part of the fun.
In my own case, I love the idea that there might have been a mastermind  behind a stooge.
Never would I assert that that was  or is actually the case! Unless/until  there is evidence.
Who now knows what the Trial might produce- not as speculation, but as sworn fact?
I am agog with excitement!19
An excitement tempered by an  acceptance that my preferred outcome( i.e that individuals who I think are baddies should be found to be baddies) is not likely to come about, no matter what the truth actually is.
And by ‘baddies’ I do not mean the accused in any current trial.
Rather,I mean that,in my opinion, there are real baddies who should be,but are not , on trial;
baddies who may have lined their own pockets by treacherously selling out the fan base of RFC , a fan base which will include those of my boyhood street-football-playing Rangers supporting pals in Cuthelton Street, Glasgow in the late 1940s early 1950s who may still be around)

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on2:44 am - May 4, 2017


upthehoopsMay 3, 2017 at 20:13  
CYGNUS X-1MAY 3, 2017 at 16:44    Today we learned in court to seal the Jelavic deal, RFC borrowed money from Ticketus, which wasn’t disclosed in the accounts. Isn’t that a sporting advantage, especially when they knew the wolf was at the door, and the entire Murray edifice, was in the process of collapsing and they couldn’t possibly repay this debt, if it was called in?
====================================== I believe Celtic were also interested in Jelavic, but opted against the deal because it was not within their budget.  Jelavic made a really significant contribution to Rangers title win in 2011. Yet when they were liquidated a significant chunk of his fee was still due to Rapid Vienna. Also, can accounts be declared properly audited if borrowings are not disclosed in them?
======================
Jelavic according to Wikpedia ended the 2010–11 season with the best goals to game ratio in Scotland after scoring 19 goals in just 27 starts, better than any other striker in Scotland.  His contribution to qualifying for a CL place (subsequently passed up in August 2011) was considerable.
One of life’s ironies is that in June 2011 Rapid were owed £2.18 M  that if unpaid by 30th June would have put UEFA on notice that RFC were in breach of FFP Article 65 Money overdue to other clubs.
However the SFA were told by UEFA on 6th June 2011 that Rangers would receive €5.094M from UEFA as payment of balance for participation in the 2010/11 CL and that it would be paid into an SFA account for transfer to RFC.
A payment of £2.18M for Jelavic’s transfer (to Rapid Vienna) was recorded in Rangers w/c 10th June cash flow.
The SFA were consulted by Rangers on 14th June 2011 on full compliance with Article 65 of UEFA FFP in respect of a contractual issue on Jelavic’s transfer.
A deposit of £5.344M which also included a distribution from the SPL was recorded in Rangers cash flow w/c 17th June.
The SFA would know that Article 65 was complied with as result of the payment of the outstanding instalment of €2.18M in w/c 10th June.
This was Rangers approach to business. Borrow money to buy players they could not afford or at the expense of other debts (like tax) , win titles as a result of gambling with other people’s money, then pay off the debt caused by the borrowing from the rewards of CL participation.
As a plan it was fine and good as long as winning titles was certain and so was qualifying for the CL/EL.
August 2011 is when the wheels fell off that business wagon.

View Comment

jimboPosted on8:13 am - May 4, 2017


“It was Rangers that brought Sir David Murray fame. His fortune had more to do with metal and property.
The connection with the Ibrox club probably brings more notoriety than fame these days, given the way in which he sold it on, disastrously, to Craig Whyte.
And much as he said in last year’s accounts from his holding company, Murray International Holdings (MIH), Sir David profoundly regrets having done that, remaining “staggered” at the revelations that followed, bitterly disappointed at the outcome and saddened at ongoing uncertainty.”

Douglas Fraser, BBC April 2014.

Had a chuckle at that this morning, came across it accidently, but after all we learned in the past week of what was going on behind the scenes 2010,2011,2012 I laughed – “he was staggered at the revelations”!  Must have came as a shock.  The poor enobled, duped fellow.

Oh and he regrets it!

View Comment

Comments are closed.