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

jimboPosted on11:57 pm - Apr 14, 2017


For Good Friday before its over. Hope some of you like Brass Bands for 5 minutes. I’ll get back to football tomorrow.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:38 am - Apr 15, 2017


StevieBCApril 14, 2017 at 23:56
‘…
JC, how old are you ?
Did you serve on HMS Victory?…’
____________
Nearest I got to sea service was with the old RNXS, disbanded in 1994 , when I was a mere stripling of 51!
I am indebted to the brilliant novels of Patrick O’Brian ( the Aubrey/Maturin ‘Master and Commander’ series)for the wee bit about boys in office looking after their friends.
The Navy then, Scottish Football now. Human nature dosn’t change.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on7:07 am - Apr 15, 2017


I can exclusively reveal that JC was rumoured to be at Trafalgar and, as a snip of a boy, was put to swabbing the decks. Rumour has it he and his mop were ‘resigned’ shortly after a regrettable incident of aggressive mopping having been repeatedly urged to show caution else he’d take someone’s eye out!

JC appealed the decision but 212 years later we still await the compliance officers report!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:37 am - Apr 15, 2017


SmugasApril 15, 2017 at 07:07 (Edit) 
I can exclusively reveal that JC was rumoured to be at Trafalgar and, as a snip of a boy, was put to swabbing the decks. Rumour has it he and his mop were ‘resigned’ shortly after a regrettable incident of aggressive mopping having been repeatedly urged to show caution else he’d take someone’s eye out!
JC appealed the decision but 212 years later we still await the compliance officers report!
_________________________________

The big question, and the one we all need answered, is:

Is JC’s mop the same mop? and how many new handles and mop heads has it had?

Same mop then, same mop now, same mop forever!

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on7:42 am - Apr 15, 2017


SMUGASAPRIL 15, 2017 at 07:07 
I can exclusively reveal that JC was rumoured to be at Trafalgar and, as a snip of a boy, was put to swabbing the decks. Rumour has it he and his mop were ‘resigned’ shortly after a regrettable incident of aggressive mopping having been repeatedly urged to show caution else he’d take someone’s eye out!
JC appealed the decision but 212 years later we still await the compliance officers report!
    ————————————————————————————————————————-
   Bu the mop has had 37 new heads and 24 new handles since then. 15…….Anyway, as no eyes were reported missing at the time………………

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on9:54 am - Apr 15, 2017


Off topic. Strange feel-good story with an unwarranted mention of the Old Firm. Amazing how the SMSM works, and manages to attach a mythical old firm relevance to a good news story. 2220
The player in question has played for the ladies teams of Celtic, Hibs and Ayr Utd and has joined the fire service. Best wishes to her in her new career. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39603361

View Comment

TincksPosted on11:04 am - Apr 15, 2017


Following DCK’s decision not to comply with the Takeover Panel’s ruling they have acted seemingly very swiftly and decisively.

As a number of people had pointed out the “Cold Shoulder” treatment would likely have little impact on a Director of a Company that could not currently gain access to financial services in the UK due to his/their existing toxic reputation.  Hence the move to obtain a court order to enforce the ToP’s judgement. 

By all accounts this is an unprecedented move and surely reflects that DCK’s reputation is catching up with him.  It is not just the way he does business that causes him trouble but the manner in which he defends his actions when authorities take action.  There is a common thread that runs through the judgements of the South African Courts, ToP and now the High Court (Ashley IP action) in that all three have made strikingly similar commentary regarding DCK’s evidence, to paraphrase “The witness has not engaged fully in the process and their evidence stretches credibility to breaking point”.

These three judgements are all in the open public domain.  Which brings us to the question, whither the SFA?  Based solely on DCK’s reputation from South Africa and prior involvement with Rangers (I know, I know), they conducted an in-depth review of his suitability to be involved in the running of a professional football business in Scotland.

In so far as there is any public clarity about their conclusions it was (hysterically) that DCK was not fit to run the LTD Co that operates the day to day activities (the team on the pitch), but could be a director of the holding company PLC.

Now everyone on TSFM, their families and pets know that DCK has been acting as a shadow director of the LTD co.  Ashley’s action in the High Court in relation to the termination of IP rights by TRFC Ltd is against three parties.  TRFC, DCK and Paul Murray as individuals. 

Since the IP agreement is between TRFC and Rangers Retail Ltd the inclusion of individuals in the action can only be in relation to  their roles as Directors and/or shadow directors of TRFC.

The judgement published is not the findings in respect of the claim.  It is the court’s decision that there is an actionable case that needs to be heard.  There is a very detailed explanation by the judge as to why he has concluded this including an exploration of the issues around shadow directors. 

Which brings us back to the SFA.  Can they really be happy that two subsequent judgements have been handed down that question the veracity of evidence provided by DCK?  These judgements both reinforce the opinion of the South African judiciary and both relate directly to the running of a business licenced by the SFA to operate in the highest division of their professional league.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:05 am - Apr 15, 2017


tamjartmarquezApril 15, 2017 at 09:54 (Edit) 
Off topic. Strange feel-good story with an unwarranted mention of the Old Firm. Amazing how the SMSM works, and manages to attach a mythical old firm relevance to a good news story. The player in question has played for the ladies teams of Celtic, Hibs and Ayr Utd and has joined the fire service. Best wishes to her in her new career. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39603361
________________________

Yup, the mention of Old Firm was totally irrelevant to the story, and clearly not included for the benefit of Celtic Ladies, who could easily have been mentioned, and the relevance clear, along with her other ex clubs.

Good luck to the young lady in her new career. A brave lass, in line with all our firefighters.

PS Have either Rangers or Celtic Ladies football clubs been in existence long enough to be described as ‘Old’ anything? I’m sure if they want to be seen as some elitist part of ladies’ football, they’d be able to come up with a more fitting title than that!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:23 am - Apr 15, 2017


TincksApril 15, 2017 at 11:04 (Edit)

There can be little doubt that the SFA knew all about King’s background of dishonesty and deceit, and I’m sure cold shivers ran down their spines as soon as they learned he wanted to take up a position at TRFC. But from that moment on, their sole aim was to find a way to ease King into the Ibrox boardroom to appease the club’s supporters. Clearly, if they’d shown the same level of desire to accommodate Mike Ashley as de facto Chairman, they’d have had absolutely no problem achieving it, and with a much greater level of honesty to boot.

No wonder Ashley appears to want both King and the SFA’s b*lls on a hook!

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on12:23 pm - Apr 15, 2017


TINCKS
APRIL 15, 2017 at 11:04
==================================

I would recommend reading that ruling to anyone who is even remotely interested in the IP issue, and indeed King’s overall behaviour. It is nothing short of scathing and reminiscent of the language used to describe his evidence when he was convicted of fraud. 

In fact it also point out that Paul Murray is every bit as bad. That they were both clearly conflicted, and that they indulged in a fishing exercise with the sole (pun intended) purpose of not acting in the best interests of the company they were both Directors of.  

View Comment

TincksPosted on1:16 pm - Apr 15, 2017


Homunculus,

The judgement in respect of the IP issue proceeding to a full hearing is indeed one of the most interesting documents of the many that have crossed our paths during this entire saga. 

The Judge keeps emphasising that this is not the trial of the issues but seems to drop a number of broad hints about how things might go, basically suggesting at one point that the defendants have not as yet offered any evidence that amounts to a substantive defence of the complaint. 

Presumably DCK and PM are using TRFC’s money for their defence? 

Separately I am trying, but failing badly, to get my head around the implications for DCK individually and TRFC/TRIFC corporately should the ToP be successful in the Court of Session and either:
A)  DCK pony up and make the offer
B)  DCK simply not be able to make the offer (despite a court order) as he doesn’t have the readies or does have them but can’t get them out of South Africa
C)  Continues to think that the rules don’t apply to him and refuses to obey such order simply retreating to his magnificent wine cellar.

My synapses are fused but the one thought that keeps recurring is that DCK has dragged the three bears neck deep into the swamp.

View Comment

TincksPosted on1:23 pm - Apr 15, 2017


AJ,

Spot on.

I don’t believe that MA has any interest now in acquiring and running Rangers.  His motivation seems to be solely to demonstrate to the watching world that if you attempt to screw Mike Ashley over, you will get beaten bloody. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:16 pm - Apr 15, 2017


TINCKS
APRIL 15, 2017 at 13:16
=====================================

I think it’s worth bearing in mind that this takeover issue is not something which has just been thrust upon King. It has been going on for quite some time. In essence since Somers made his complaint to the Takeover Panel. So we are talking early 2015 this has been going on since.

You could argue that there was no need for King to take any meaningful action at that stage. However by mid 2015 the Panel told him that they considered that it was a concert party and that he led it. At that stage he should have made some sort of contingency, even if he was going to appeal, which he did. 

As we know that appeal ultimately failed, so what did King do. Did he put the money together to back the offer, did he send out a prospectus. Did he follow any of the instructions, no he put out a ridiculous statement and then ignored things. 

“I do not agree with TAB’s much delayed ruling nor follow its logic and I shall take the appropriate time to reflect upon it and consider the best course of action for myself, RIFC and its shareholders.”

It wasn’t a suggestion Dave, or a talking point, it was an instruction from the regulator. Seriously, who do you think you are. 

The matter is now with the Court of Session and as I understand it they simply need to order him to make the offer. I really don’t know what the ramifications are in him either refusing to comply with their order or simply ignoring it are. However I suspect their reaction to that will not be “Aye OK then Dave. If you don’t fancy it then fair enough”. This is the highest civil Court in the country we are talking about, not a body put in place so that the financial industry can self-regulate.

To me this is potentially the most significant thing (financially) to have happened to the club since it started out all those five years ago. So long as he is there the chances of raising money, other than loans from existing shareholders / lenders have to be as near zero as makes no difference. Even the existing people getting paid in shares has become even more problematic (and they are already failing to do it), and some of the existing lenders might just look to get their money back. Bearing in mind the club already has no proper facilities available to it and has been loss making in every year of its existence. 

It’s a serious mess, and the SMSM are as usual failing the Rangers’ support by pandering to their desire to have the truth hidden from them. Anything which helps King stay at the PLC is now hurting the club and it’s support. They just don’t want to hear it, and the main stream media don’t want to tell them it. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:23 pm - Apr 15, 2017


TINCKS
APRIL 15, 2017 at 13:23  
AJ,
Spot on.
I don’t believe that MA has any interest now in acquiring and running Rangers.  His motivation seems to be solely to demonstrate to the watching world that if you attempt to screw Mike Ashley over, you will get beaten bloody. 

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

Agreed.

The previous club decided to have a major fight with HMRC, that went well. What with the whole ceasing to exist thing.

The new one has decided to have it’s major fight with a conscience free, vindictive multi-billionaire. I doubt that is going to go much better. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on2:39 pm - Apr 15, 2017


TINCKS:
“B)  DCK simply not be able to make the offer (despite a court order) as he doesn’t have the readies or does have them but can’t get them out of South Africa”

I wondered about that scenario.  Surely if he doesn’t have the cash he would have got right back to them and asked what his options were in that circumstance.  No sane person would just stay quiet and hope it will go away.

It’s a strange one.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:55 pm - Apr 15, 2017


TincksApril 15, 2017 at 13:16
‘…..Presumably DCK and PM are using TRFC’s money for their defence? ‘
________
Sure as hell they won’t be using their own, any of them!

It will be ‘directors’ indemnity’-and they will have made sure that any insurance premiums are up to date!

Murray and others will presumably , as TRFC directors, be covered under the Articles of Association of TRFC Ltd.

King won’t be, because of course, he is not a Director of TRFC Ltd, although his shadow looms large.

But, Question: will he be covered by being a director of RIFC plc, as the holding company of TRFC Ltd?

Companies House is having a spring-clean at the moment so I can’t get in to the Articles of Association either of TRFC Ltd or RIFC plc.

There would be a something  entirely pleasurable for me if our son of Catlemilk , and son of a police officer ( who mentioned Freudian explorations of behaviour?) had personally to pay for the lawyers acting for him in this matter, while the Murray boy was covered by directors’ indemnity.

But perhaps that’s too fanciful.

Even for me.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:35 pm - Apr 15, 2017


HomunculusApril 15, 2017 at 14:16
‘….It wasn’t a suggestion Dave, or a talking point, it was an instruction from the regulator. Seriously, who do you think you are. ‘
________
Could not have put it better myself.

It seems to me that the man is seriously deficient in his understanding of how little is his place in the world inhabited by the rest of us. And possibly, just seriously deficient in understanding.

The worry for me is that, apart from a Sheriff court case that I remember hearing about some years ago during which a member of the public ,sitting in the public benches,  in some way attracted the ire of the Sheriff to the point that he was done for contempt of court there and then, and hustled off to the cellars for the rest of the afternoon, I have seen only mercy and kindness from a judge when dealing with a contempt of court charge.

Admittedly, I haven’t seen many such cases in the Court of Session.

But I would hope that if our King were eventually to be charged with contempt of court, the fact that he would be seen to be causing problems for others in the whole world Mammon , would be enough to ensure that he would be (metaphorically , of course) hanged  from the nearest lamp-post.

Where the City is concerned, it’s dog eat dog.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on3:46 pm - Apr 15, 2017


ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 15, 2017 at 11:23  

There can be little doubt that the SFA knew all about King’s background of dishonesty and deceit, and I’m sure cold shivers ran down their spines as soon as they learned he wanted to take up a position at TRFC. But from that moment on, their sole aim was to find a way to ease King into the Ibrox boardroom to appease the club’s supporters

Stephen McGowan of the Scottish Daily Mail commented today not only on the point of the SFA not wanting to have Rangers supporters on the steps of Hampden, but also on the process that was followed to approve King.  He also quotes an unnamed top flight Chairman who said the SFA will live to rue the day they approved him.  None of this should be a surprise of course as the SFA have repeatedly shown they will approve anyone associated with Rangers no matter their history, and will also fall over backwards to assist them in any other way possible.  If King were to leave and yet another questionable charlatan appeared they would also be welcomed with open arms. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:56 pm - Apr 15, 2017


upthehoopsApril 15, 2017 at 15:46
‘…….He also quotes an unnamed top flight Chairman who said the SFA will live to rue the day they approved him..’
__________
Aye.
But where was that ‘top-flight Chairman ‘when it came to the perpetration of the Big Lie, long before the g&s liar was on the scene post liquidation?
We have to keep in mind that the King thing is about the new club, the TRFC Ltd.
 NOT about the ‘Liquidation- sooner- or- later- to -be- dissolved ‘ Bill Struth’s , John Greig’s, Jim Baxter’s, Sir Walter’s, Alec McLeish’s, … Ally the gardener’s club.
And that we are about the business of showing that our football governance lied to us, trying to tell us that  a club created by some horse-loving chancer in 2012 is the same club that was founded on Glasgow Greeen in  whatever year!
King is not the basic problem, anymore that CG was the problem.
The real problem is  the fact that the Football establishment created and supports a monstrous lie .
But the more insidious, more evil, problem, is that we  have a journalistic ethos that is quite happy not only accept that huge lie, but to actively propagate it!
And, in the case of the BBC, to use our money in so doing.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on5:08 pm - Apr 15, 2017


That remains the intriguing thing JC.  Said chairmen, with Chamberlainesq generosity, somehow thought they could give life to the old club but then somehow keep it in check thereafter despite convincing it (the rest of us remain to be) of its own immortality!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on5:23 pm - Apr 15, 2017


JOHN CLARKAPRIL 15, 2017 at 16:56  Aye.But where was that ‘top-flight Chairman ‘when it came to the perpetration of the Big Lie, long before the g&s liar was on the scene post liquidation?

Absolutely agree John. I think the underlying point of McGowan’s article though is that appeasing the Rangers support appears to be the priority. Do they (SFA and Chairmen) simply live in fear of them?

View Comment

Charlie_KellyPosted on5:43 pm - Apr 15, 2017


Looks like we’re going to have some real end of season drama this season with 7th-11th in the Premiership currently separated by only 5 points and they all still have to play each other. 
Then there’s the three way battle between Falkirk, Morton & Dundee Utd to earn the play-off spot.
We all know the top/bottom 6 was introduced to maintain the four Celtic vs Rangers games and that the play-offs were introduced to try and keep the SPL as much of a  closed shop as possible as opposed to a straightforward two up/two down model etc… 
BUT the unintended result of this is that the people who run our game have actually stumbled on to an exciting format that virtually guarantees massive “six-pointers” at the business end of the season.
No doubt they’ll scrap it soon enough. Drama & excitement in Scottish football? We can’t be having that!

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on6:24 pm - Apr 15, 2017


John ClarkApril 15, 2017 at 14:55   
TincksApril 15, 2017 at 13:16‘…..Presumably DCK and PM are using TRFC’s money for their defence? ‘________Sure as hell they won’t be using their own, any of them!
It will be ‘directors’ indemnity’-and they will have made sure that any insurance premiums are up to date!
Murray and others will presumably , as TRFC directors, be covered under the Articles of Association of TRFC Ltd.
King won’t be, because of course, he is not a Director of TRFC Ltd, although his shadow looms large.
But, Question: will he be covered by being a director of RIFC plc, as the holding company of TRFC Ltd?
Companies House is having a spring-clean at the moment so I can’t get in to the Articles of Association either of TRFC Ltd or RIFC plc.
There would be a something  entirely pleasurable for me if our son of Catlemilk , and son of a police officer ( who mentioned Freudian explorations of behaviour?) had personally to pay for the lawyers acting for him in this matter, while the Murray boy was covered by directors’ indemnity.
But perhaps that’s too fanciful.
Even for me.
========================
There have been a number of myths created by the SFA/SP(F)L since 2012/13 and not questioned by smsm and all of them toxic to our game.
The Holding Company is one that needs exposing to the disinfectant of the light of day.
Were MIH the Holding Company of Rangers FC or did the MIH owner simply own the majority of shares in RFC?  Were the holding company prior to 2012 not actually the total number of share holders, personified in SDM/MIH , who lost those shares and so ownership when RFC went bust?
Are RIFC in a similar position? Are RIFC the Holding Company  of TRFC or are they really just representing the total shareholding base, including the Zombies ((c) Douglas Fraser BBC) ,  as the Holding Company in the same way as MIH were?
Did MIH run the day to day operations of RFC and are RIFC doing the same?
Did either MIH or do RIFC have a written contract to operate/run RFC/TRFC as is required by Art 12 of UEFA FFP and Annexes in order to qualify as the operator of a club with SFA Membership to apply for a UEFA Licence?
Whose name TRFC or RIFC appears on the current application to UEFA for a UEFA Licence and which Directors will sign that application TRFC or RIFCs? If DK has any say in the running of TRFC, authorised in writing or not, how can the SFA trust anything coming from any source that he is associated with? 
This propaganda fog is of the SFA and SPFL’s making, behind it they shift the goalposts to suit their argument. The main stream media show no indication of actually coming to grips with the rules and seeking the required clarification, not from the SFA but from UEFA. Perhaps Mr McGowan will make an attempt using the information and questions at http://etims.net/?p=11054 ?
The SFA are sitting on a letter from UEFA that states how they view TRFC/RIFC but further clarity on who will put forward the application for a licence should be sought and made public so everyone is at the same place of understanding and in the current context where Dave King sits in terms of control.
Regan is and has been a disaster for our game, his disingenuous replies/lies are a matter of record yet there he sits (or is it cowers) keeping his fingers crossed that the SFA Role in seeing CW met his undertaking to pay the wtc bill in 2011 does not come out at the forthcoming trial or in the MA case.
He is closely followed by Doncaster, whom many will recall has done nothing to revisit LNS in spite of being told in 2014 by his lawyers that key information was kept from them as they went about setting up the LNS Commission.
His fingers and legs will be crossed, as will the SPL Board members who did not appeal the LNS Decision, that the Supreme Court find for MIH even though it is now a matter of fact RFC used irregular ebts and concealed accompanying side letters from SFA/SPL regardless of that SC Decision. 
For commercial purposes (and Doncaster’s pay packet reflects it) he has said RFC and TRFC/RIFC are the same club. On whose authority is not known but the removal of both he and Regan is required just as a start towards making our game honest.
After they depart some sort of independent review into how this mess occurred is necessary with recommendations on a change of football governance structures to prevent a repeat.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on6:38 pm - Apr 15, 2017


     Over all, when he total vote to allow Sevco entry is tallied (SPL+SFL) it comes out at 26 for, (inc Rangers(I.L.), and 15 against, with 1 abstaining. I think we may be being a wee bit hard on at least SOME of our clubs. 
    This is actually compounded slightly because those for, (if memory serves) voted to allow a new club trading as “The Rangers” into the league.  
   To be fair to them, it doesn’t appear they were aware of the same club myth which followed, or the ahem, purchased history and titles. 

0

View Comment

TincksPosted on8:44 pm - Apr 15, 2017


John ClarkApril 15, 2017 at 16:56  
upthehoopsApril 15, 2017 at 15:46‘…….He also quotes an unnamed top flight Chairman who said the SFA will live to rue the day they approved him..’__________Aye.But where was that ‘top-flight Chairman ‘when it came to the perpetration of the Big Lie, long before the g&s liar was on the scene post liquidation?
—————————–
JC,

This to me is the greatest part of the mystery.  The seeming inability and or unwillingness of the Clubs to stand up for firstly their own best interests, secondly the integrity of the game and lastly to realise that both of these ultimately go together.

The SFA is the Clubs.  They could decide to clean out the stables tomorrow if they wanted but seem in thrall to the Blue Pound.

I really just don’t get it.

AuldheidApril 15, 2017 at 18:

There have been a number of myths created by the SFA/SP(F)L since 2012/13 and not questioned by smsm and all of them toxic to our game.The Holding Company is one that needs exposing to the disinfectant of the light of day.
————————————————–
Auldheid,

If Financial Fair Play is ever to mean anything at all then the operating and any holding company/chain of operating companies needs to be viewed as a single entity otherwise debt can merely be swapped around by internal accounting measures, holding companies liquidated and creditors stiffed with impunity for the operating company.

Another huge problem is the use of the historic word “Club” in the title of every professional football business.

Clubs are member organisations with elected officers.

Celtic, Rangers, Arbroath, Barcelona et al are businesses that generate revenue by football related activities.  They all happen to use the word “Club” in their name.

Uniquely it seems the SFA has imbued the word “Club” with a mystical, ethereal status that transcends any notion of reality or law. 

The holding company myth and ethereal club somehow combine to facilitate a fable of continuity that stretches credulity beyond its limits.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:00 pm - Apr 15, 2017


TINCKSAPRIL 15, 2017 at 11:04
These three judgements are all in the open public domain. Which brings us to the question, whither the SFA? Based solely on DCK’s reputation from South Africa and prior involvement with Rangers (I know, I know), they conducted an in-depth review of his suitability to be involved in the running of a professional football business in Scotland.
————-
something we touched on the other day.
CLUSTER ONEAPRIL 13, 2017 at 21:19———————-King seems to be fully co-operative and respond to all questions by the SFA, Yet no one else can get a straight answer from him. Either the SFA are very good at what they do or king knows he can respond to any of the SFA’s questions as they will believe any old rubbish he tells them.
——————–
Everyone and their Granny called king out for what he is,and yet the SFA after their in depth review of him believe that he is just the kind of guy who is good to be involved in scottish football.
      

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:15 pm - Apr 15, 2017


HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 15, 2017 at 14:16
It’s a serious mess, and the SMSM are as usual failing the Rangers’ support by pandering to their desire to have the truth hidden from them. Anything which helps King stay at the PLC is now hurting the club and it’s support. They just don’t want to hear it, and the main stream media don’t want to tell them it.
—————–
If i could give a wee hand clapy thing for that post HOMUNCULUS i would, but could only find a thumb up one04

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:32 pm - Apr 15, 2017


JOHN CLARKAPRIL 15, 2017 at 14:55
It will be ‘directors’ indemnity’-and they will have made sure that any insurance premiums are up to date!
Murray and others will presumably , as TRFC directors, be covered under the Articles of Association of TRFC Ltd.
———————-
Did Murray and some others not get removed from TRFC (maybe removed is the wrong word) in a bit of in house reshuffle
Happy for any correction.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:48 pm - Apr 15, 2017


I see that JJ in his most recent piece is “correcting” Big Pink and this blog, in relation to King’s current predicament. He also appears to be having a backhanded pop at Phil Mac, without actually mentioning him by name.

He is also saying that King being “cold shouldered” will end up with Rangers’ Metro bank account being closed and the club being unable to take credit card payments, or provide credit to season ticket holders via Zebra.

Can someone clear this up for me, on my reading of it the “cold shoulder” specifically relates to the “Takeover Code” and that relates to takeovers and mergers. So from what I can see “cold shouldering” would make it impossible for King to get involved in that sort of thing. It may also cause problems with RIFC PLC issuing shares, including to external investors, or swapping debt for equity. As that potentially would fall within the description of a takeover.

I can also understand that him being “cold shouldered” may lead to institutions wanting to distance them self from King, particularly if they felt it would make things difficult for them with the FCA. However that would be a secondary effect rather than a direct one. It would be a choice made by the supplier rather than an instruction from the Takeover Panel. 

Why would Dave King being “cold shouldered” have a direct effect on Rangers’ banking arrangements or ability to deal with credit card payments, or broker credit for it’s customers. I just don’t understand how that is covered by the code. 

Thanks for any assistance, it all gets very confusing. 

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on10:55 pm - Apr 15, 2017


I notice that JJ has again resorted to making disparaging remarks about SFM in his latest article. Surely if SFM is as insignificant, and indeed obsolete, as JJ makes out, it would prove counter-productive to continually highlight the blog. Methinks he’s ever so slightly miffed that anybody on here might have the sheer audacity to question his:
 
– Rangersness, or blatant lack thereof

 – plagiarism

 – factual inaccuracies (eg Dundee Utd insolvency)

 – blatant homophobia

 – questionable exile

 – self-absorbed, egotistical, self-centred, vainglorious attitude

 – incessant grubby grovelling for funding

As an occasional reader of his blog, I would reluctantly consider contributing financially towards the maintenance of his site just as soon as he reciprocates by making a financial contribution to SFM, which after all he could not conceivably comment on unless he too was an avid reader. 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on12:08 am - Apr 16, 2017


HOMUNCULUS
APRIL 15, 2017 at 22:48

Why would Dave King being “cold shouldered” have a direct effect on Rangers’ banking arrangements or ability to deal with credit card payments, or broker credit for it’s customers. I just don’t understand how that is covered by the code. 
Thanks for any assistance, it all gets very confusing
===================================
It does seem a bit odd that punishment for one person’s dodgy behaviour could potentially have a wider impact on entities and other individuals.

In terms of the practicalities of enforcement, I would presume that King would appear on a ‘sanctions list’ including known criminals, Politically Exposed Persons who might be trying to defraud their home country, and assorted baddies.
For new business an FCA registered business – including lawyers and accountants – are obliged to conduct a KYC / Know Your Customer risk assessment of a potential new customer.

So for new ventures, accounts, loans,etc which have King’s name attached could be told to sling their hook.
For current businesses King is involved with -and especially RIFC – I would think that the high profile and interest in King should make any business involved with King to do their own risk assessment and perhaps give him notice of withdrawing services.

I’m guessing as an absent Chairman King is not an authorised RIFC signatory, and maybe smaller suppliers who are also TRFC supporters will continue doing business at Ibrox regardless ?

But that is my interpretation of Cold Shoulder as I have no specific knowledge or experience with with that particular penalty, but looks like it could be managed via Anti Money Laundering regulations.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:02 am - Apr 16, 2017


AuldheidApril 15, 2017 at 18:24
‘….After they depart some sort of independent review into how this mess occurred is necessary with recommendations on a change of football governance structures to prevent a repeat.’
__________
Yes.
We have seen live on tv not long ago  the newish president of the FA being belted by the Westminster parliament and threatened with all manner of things if they don’t get a grip on the way English football is governed.
It is astonishing that the monumental deceit practised by the SFA in its whole handling of the dirty , sh.tty mess created by the cheating of SDM ( the darling knight of the Scottish establishment who remains unpunished for the trouble he has caused, unlike the Royal Bank of Scotland ex-knight), has not been addressed by the Scottish Parliament.
Even more astonishing ,when one sits back and looks at what happened, is the fact that 41 businesses whose business is the business of commercial competitive football sat, and continue to sit, like head-light bedazzled Easter bunnies, in a trance while a start-up new business was allowed, and is being allowed, to trash the very idea of sporting integrity and honest sporting competition.
We have a Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, and a Minister for Public Health and Sport.
But in spite of the fact that public money is paid out to the SFA, and that the whole ‘Rangers’ saga has been a dominant feature in the daily lives of the SMSM and the BBC and of a very substantial chunk of the  electorate,there has been not a cheep from either of those about the questionable doings of the SFA, and the reek of institutional corruption that emanates from the 6th Floor at Hampden.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:34 am - Apr 16, 2017


STEVIEBC
APRIL 16, 2017 at 00:08
==========================================

Thanks for the reply, I don’t think I expressed my question very well.

Put simply, from what I have read the “cold shouldering” only relates to matters covered by The Code, which covers takeovers and mergers. So basically it’s a punishment which says, you didn’t act properly in these matters so we are going to stop you doing it for a few years.

It doesn’t actually relate to things like banking facilities, providing credit through third parties etc. So that would only really kick in if the third party decided to withdraw their services as part of their own due diligence, it would not be following a direct instruction from the Takeover Panel or FCA.

I can also see why it would have a direct effect on share issues, conversion of debt to equity etc, as those could also fall within the purview of the Takeover Panel and be covered by The Code. 

It just seems to me, as a lay man, that people are taking too wide a view on the direct ramifications of the potential “cold shouldering”.  Which is not to say that it would not be disastrous for Rangers (whilst King is there) as they genuinely do need investment and anything preventing a share issue makes that much more problematic.

Bearing in mind that the Takeover Panel has gone to the Court of Session to enforce their ruling, that is the really significant issue just now. How can King (not Rangers, King personally) comply with that.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on9:40 am - Apr 16, 2017


HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 16, 2017 at 08:34
     “Bearing in mind that the Takeover Panel has gone to the Court of Session to enforce their ruling, that is the really significant issue just now. How can King (not Rangers, King personally) comply with that”
   ————————————————————————————————————————–
    Would it be fair to suggest that the only way for King to avoid making the buy-out offer, would be to prove he can’t possibly comply, (i.e. doesn’t have the wherewithal)  This would mean disclosure of ALL his business interests and accounts, otherwise he will be in contempt for willfully disobeying the edict. …”Do not pass go”
    After his hostile take-over promises of investment (which he proves he doesn’t have) again it will be, “Do not pass go” for lying to shareholders.
   Either he proves it, or a court seizure of all accounts will follow. ?
   I think he is being allowed to paint himself into a corner, and wouldn’t be surprised to find that SARS are playing a part.
  

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:00 am - Apr 16, 2017


CORRUPT OFFICIAL
APRIL 16, 2017 at 09:40
===================================

It’s a very interesting take CO.

It does make sense, if the CoS order him to do something then surely his only “out” is to convince them that he can’t. Which would very much give lie to the £30m he had waiting to “over-invest”.

His choices would then be to either put the offer in place, and it looks like he can’t and can’t get backing to do it. Or out himself as a liar. Not a big issue to be fair. 

I suppose he could argue that he had the £30m available at the time, but he doesn’t now. Though I imagine the CoS would expect him to prove that as well.

I think we are left with “Police ask for assistance in tracing missing Drumchapel man (61). Last seen boarding a plane to South Africa”

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:12 am - Apr 16, 2017


I try not to click on Daily Record headlines on ‘News Now’ but I couldn’t resist this one:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/its-time-rangers-fans-take-10235245

Amongst many good sound bites I liked this one:

“You’d also like to think the SFA’s main board would be looking at this latest embarrassment and wondering just how wise they were to use their discretionary powers to circumvent the ‘fit and proper’ guidelines to let King in the door in the first place.”

At last someone points a finger at the 6th floor at Hampdump.

Gordon Waddell.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:16 am - Apr 16, 2017


Only because they now see the loose cannon that is King blocking progress at IBrox not assisting it.  He’s played his little part, just Whyte and Green before him.  

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:28 am - Apr 16, 2017


Funny enough I was thinking about this early this morning but couldn’t get the words together to post.

A lot of people looking in think this whole situation is just ‘old firm’ rivalry and jealousy? from other clubs.  3 categories of people seem to ignore or be blinded to a real story in Scottish football.  The media, politicians, EUEFA.

I live in hope that one MSP with an interest in football will take up the challenge on the many issues.  Or someone in Europe with a sense for truth & justice.  And of course the media.  Someone with the b.lls to speak the truth.  I’m sure the journalists know the truth but are terrified on many levels.

As Auldheid & JC constantly remind us, for all the faults of the clubs at Ibrox (and there are many) the real culprits are the folk who sit in Hampdump.

So well done Gordon Waddell for making a start.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on10:58 am - Apr 16, 2017


JIMBOAPRIL 16, 2017 at 10:28
   You might like to read this Jimbo

https://thecelticblog.com/2017/04/blogs/the-sunday-mail-wants-sevco-fans-to-give-dave-king-even-more-money/

   My take is that it would suit pretendygers better to have the offer enforced and accept it. T3B’s on having a favourable court verdict returned can then silence any voice those shares hold, a la Blue Pitch and Margarita. 
   The same pretendygers will soon be able to buy them back……..At a penny a pop

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on12:05 pm - Apr 16, 2017


Homunculus
April 15, 2017 at 22:48
 
Homunculus
April 16, 2017 at 08:34
 
———————————————
Yes you are correct.

“no entity or professional adviser regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority may act for the individuals concerned on any transactions that are governed by the Code. – See more at:

http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2017/02/takeover-panel-gives-the-cold-shoulder#sthash.BQetqxaY.dpbs

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/statement-on-takeover-panel-cold-shouldering.pdf

This bit  “transaction to which Takeover Code applies
 
https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/MAR/4/3.html.
 
(2)
Where a restriction under MAR 4.3.1 R applies, the firm is not prevented from carrying on other activities (including regulated activities) in relation to that person. This includes designated investment business activity which is not in connection with a transaction to which the Takeover Code applies.
 
Regulated activities above
https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/G974.html
 
Sorry for all the links.03

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on1:24 pm - Apr 16, 2017


WOODSTEIN
APRIL 16, 2017 at 12:05
===================================

Thanks you for the effort.

So I take it there is no reason for Metro Bank to close Rangers bank account, Zebra not to provide credit facilities to supporters or Mastercard / Visa not to process credit card transactions, unless they chose to do that for their own reasons.

They will not be forced to do it by the Takeover Panel or the FCA due to their current involvement with King. 

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on2:38 pm - Apr 16, 2017


Homunculus
I saw the same aspects of the code and was about to ask the same questions regarding the extent of activities to which the cold shoulder would apply. There seems to be no direct mechanism or series of these for the kind of vast array of consequences some bloggers are anticipating.
Any clarification would be helpful

View Comment

SmugasPosted on2:43 pm - Apr 16, 2017


BP.  You might want to dust off your rule book about discussing refereeing decisions!

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:46 pm - Apr 16, 2017


BFBPUZZLED
APRIL 16, 2017 at 14:38
=============================

I think Woodstein has cleared it up. His reply certainly makes sense to me. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:25 pm - Apr 16, 2017


Cluster OneApril 15, 2017 at 22:32
‘…Did Murray and some others not get removed from TRFC (maybe removed is the wrong word) in a bit of in house reshuffle…’
_______________________
Yes.  We learned from a   ‘statement’  that “there have been some minor changes to Rangers’ internal governance structures.”
But as far as I can make out,  indemnity cover for directors can cover ex-directors for actions they took when serving as directors.
I would imagine that the Paul Murrays of the world  make sure that they cover their ars.s in that regard, as Charles Green did, or tried to do.

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on3:41 pm - Apr 16, 2017


Homunculus
April 16, 2017 at 13:24
———————————————————  
“Metro Bank, Zebra, or Mastercard / Visa,  like most other companies, banks are under no obligation to continue doing business with someone if they do not want to. However, a bank should not close an account without good reason.”
https://bankomb.org.nz/news-and-publications/quick-guides/item/closure-of-accounts
 
if a bank is complying with a court order
 if you have acted illegally
 if you have breached the bank’s terms and conditions
if you have acted abusively towards bank staff.
 
“unless they chose to do that for their own reasons.”  

Would apply, subject to, as per the link above, the Banking Ombudsman Scheme.
 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:52 pm - Apr 16, 2017


As the ‘cold shoulder’ has only been applied on two or three previous occasions, it makes finding a similar example to the King/TRFC scenario unlikely (I would imagine it’s quite unique), so it’s unlikely that we, or anyone else, will be able to put forward an accurate likely scenario of how it will directly affect the club. We can be sure, though, that the club can well do without this latest in a long line of problems.

One thing it must do, though, in a strange twist, is to make it harder to get rid of King until the whole TOP matter is resolved, one way or the other, for I doubt King will be allowed to offload his shares until given the go-ahead by the CoS, as otherwise he would not be able to comply with the TOP ruling should it be upheld by the court. We don’t know how long this will take, nor how long King will be given to comply, but the longer it takes, the more of a problem it becomes. Then, if a purchaser outside of the ‘concert party’ cannot be found, the other members might be forced to buy them creating ‘The Concert Party’ and have to comply with the ruling themselves. With James Blair on both boards, surely a purchase by Club1872 (a likely purchaser) would be viewed as part of a concert party, too!

Then, having forked out a few more millions, to no benefit for the club, they would almost certainly have to repay any of the loans brought to the club by King, for I doubt he would be prepared to let his own money, or the money he is responsible for, out of his own control. I could also envisage him demanding it back for no other reason than sheer vindictiveness!

Without any knowledge or crystal ball to use, I do envisage, though, a situation developing where, if the 3bears aren’t in a position to take up King’s shares and comply with the TOP ruling, that they are left with no other choice than to wind up the company, regardless of how their ability to achieve/retain credit pans out!

When you add in all the court cases and potential costs, it makes finding an independent purchaser for the shares ever more unlikely! What’s more, with this turmoil in the boardroom, handling any fallout from the court cases becomes ever more difficult. A big question will be, is there anybody on the board willing to take over the responsibility of leading the club through this minefield?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:08 pm - Apr 16, 2017


ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 16, 2017 at 15:52  
One thing it must do, though, in a strange twist, is to make it harder to get rid of King until the whole TOP matter is resolved, one way or the other, for I doubt King will be allowed to offload his shares until given the go-ahead by the CoS, as otherwise he would not be able to comply with the TOP ruling should it be upheld by the court.

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

AJ

I don’t really follow that the CoS needs to uphold the decision. 

Surely the Takeover Panel has only asked them to enforce it, not to ratify it. 

They are a regulatory body but do not have powers to enforce their decisions, therefore they need the Court to do it for them. Does King even have any rights in relation to this matter, can he ask the Court not to make an order in relation to this. 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on4:59 pm - Apr 16, 2017


AJ

id also add that the prospective 3rd party now knows a clean slate new start, possibly as high as the championship is now possible free of all the hassle.  

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:23 pm - Apr 16, 2017


HomunculusApril 16, 2017 at 16:08 (Edit) 
ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 16, 2017 at 15:52  One thing it must do, though, in a strange twist, is to make it harder to get rid of King until the whole TOP matter is resolved, one way or the other, for I doubt King will be allowed to offload his shares until given the go-ahead by the CoS, as otherwise he would not be able to comply with the TOP ruling should it be upheld by the court. =====================================AJI don’t really follow that the CoS needs to uphold the decision. Surely the Takeover Panel has only asked them to enforce it, not to ratify it. They are a regulatory body but do not have powers to enforce their decisions, therefore they need the Court to do it for them. Does King even have any rights in relation to this matter, can he ask the Court not to make an order in relation to this. 
_________________________

I don’t know, but I would imagine they would have to examine the ruling before enforcing it to ensure the correct procedures have been followed and that the wording is correct. Remember, this is the first time any court in the UK has been asked to act on this matter, so a precedent is about to be set. I am quite sure that, at the very least, the CoS will have to make a decision on whether or not the TOP have acted within their authority and that their decision is correct.

Still, the thrust of my post is that King won’t be able to offload his shares until after the CoS hearing, and will then have a period in which to comply with the ruling, or to return to court for a criminal trial! With the court case minefield coming up, TRFC/RIFC may well be rudderless, or more so than usual, and, at the least, have a boardroom in turmoil. I would imagine that, as long as King holds these shares, he will be considered, by the panel, to be part of the concert party, and so be forced to sell, eventually. This could well cause a problem in finding someone prepared, and with the money, to come in who is not attached to the concert party.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:18 pm - Apr 16, 2017


Daviesleftpeg has posted another blog in which he refers to another Employment Tribunal judgement that was issued last week.  It seems that Templeton, Law, Clark and Shields dropped their claim against the club, or have they reached an OOC settlement.

https://daviesleftpeg.wordpress.com/2017/04/16/spivs-spivs-everywhere/

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS  (SCOTLAND)Case No: 4105211/2016, 4105212/2016, 4105213/2016 & 4105214/2016
Mr D Templeton Claimant
Mr N Law Claimant
Mr N Clark Claimant
Mr D Shields Claimant
The Rangers Football Club Ltd Respondents

JUDGMENT
The claims, having been withdrawn by the claimants, are dismissed under Rule 52 of the Rules contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.

Employment Judge: M. KearnsDate of Judgment: 27 March 2017
Entered in register and copied to parties: 28 March 2017

 

View Comment

occamPosted on6:23 pm - Apr 16, 2017


WRT events at Ross County: probably my errant memory and Fair Play wishful thinking but – have there not been examples in Europe of players picking themselves off the floor after falling to tell the referee that there had been no contact ergo no penalty awarded? Has a manager ever told his player to miss a spot kick after an unjust award?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:32 pm - Apr 16, 2017


easyJamboApril 16, 2017 at 18:18 (Edit)

No idea over the Templeton and Others case, but the man behind Daviesleftpeg appears to have the misfortune of being a bear with an open mind and enquiring brain. It cannot be a comfortable feeling to come to this kind of realisation, imagine how we’d feel if further on down the line we discovered Ann Budge had a chequered past and had broken rules when taking over the club!

Credit to him, too, for being able to admit to having previously backed King. He’s been posting these type of posts for some time now, and yet still the majority online seem happy to disregard his warnings. Unlike JJ, no one seems to question his Rangers credentials, and I doubt he’s ever going to post anything he finds that might do direct damage to the club, but to survive without the intervention of a sugar daddy, TRFC need more people like him to get some alternative fan movement going before it’s too late, if it’s not too late already! 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:42 pm - Apr 16, 2017


JOHN CLARKAPRIL 16, 2017 at 15:25
Yes. We learned from a ‘statement’ that “there have been some minor changes to Rangers’ internal governance structures.”But as far as I can make out, indemnity cover for directors can cover ex-directors for actions they took when serving as directors.I would imagine that the Paul Murrays of the world make sure that they cover their ars.s in that regard, as Charles Green did, or tried to do.
—————–
Just as i was reading your post i remembered about the charles Green indemnity cover for directors. As you say  I would imagine that the Paul Murrays of the world make sure that they cover their ars.s.
So even if Mr Murray is now with trifc he should if he is smart enough be covered as an ex director of trfc.
Thanks for clarification.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:05 pm - Apr 16, 2017


ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 16, 2017 at 15:52
Without any knowledge or crystal ball to use, I do envisage, though, a situation developing where, if the 3bears aren’t in a position to take up King’s shares and comply with the TOP ruling, that they are left with no other choice than to wind up the company, regardless of how their ability to achieve/retain credit pans out!
————————
By winding up the company, the company being TRIFC. what happens to all the shares in TRIFC? 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:45 pm - Apr 16, 2017


EASYJAMBOAPRIL 16, 2017 at 18:18       8 Votes 
Daviesleftpeg has posted another blog in which he refers to another Employment Tribunal judgement that was issued last week.  It seems that Templeton, Law, Clark and Shields dropped their claim against the club, or have they reached an OOC settlement
———————-
Daviesleftpeg

As for some fans’ agenda in wanting Dave King out? Well, of course, there is a desire among some fans for him to stand down. What Rangers fan wants to witness the club chairman dragging the club’s name through the mud from court to court in a litigation frenzy? As a British club, we should be keen to see Great British values being upheld and that includes the law. Why on earth does Mr King get a pass? This week alone has seen three, yes three, different court matters come to a head:
——————–
Much like Craig Whyte, the current Chairman will be banned from being a UK Company Director. We’ve now reached a stage where a hard core are trying to defend the indefensible. If he remains as Chairman of our club, which I have no doubt he will attempt to do, the sanctions against him will also have an impact on Rangers as a business.
——————-
They still believe he is the chairman of the club18
—-
As a British club, we should be keen to see Great British values being upheld and that includes the law.

I have no words.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:52 pm - Apr 16, 2017


Cluster OneApril 16, 2017 at 20:05 (Edit) 
ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 16, 2017 at 15:52Without any knowledge or crystal ball to use, I do envisage, though, a situation developing where, if the 3bears aren’t in a position to take up King’s shares and comply with the TOP ruling, that they are left with no other choice than to wind up the company, regardless of how their ability to achieve/retain credit pans out!————————By winding up the company, the company being TRIFC. what happens to all the shares in TRIFC? 
___________________________-
As RIFC plc’s only asset would be a liquidated company/club, it would be wound up too, with the shareholders sharing the proceeds from the sale of TRFC’s assets (assuming there would be anything left after the loans and other creditors had been repaid).

By the way, I’m not saying this is going to happen, just that it’s a possible/likely scenario should no independent buyer of King’s shares come on the scene, and the rest of the concert party be unable to satisfy the demands of the Take-over Panel.

There seems to be the perfect storm brewing, with those court cases that could cost the club millions of pounds, but even if we take that out of the picture, the TOP decision could be a killer.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:44 pm - Apr 16, 2017


Thanks for reply

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:55 pm - Apr 16, 2017


Looks like we won’t need live coverage of the Fraudco trial from James Doleman
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/876769/former-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-launches-twitter-page-to-post-updates-during-fraud-trial/

Craig Whyte is apparently covering it himself.
————————
On a more serious point, I’m left wondering if reporting restrictions are being lifted.

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on11:09 pm - Apr 16, 2017


What if
You were a RRM who for decades genuinely followed TRFC solely for football reasons. Someone who believed his  lengthy  experience in senior management could help turn round the fortunes of TRFC if he accepted the position of Director?
Meaning
Someone who wouldn`t deny being an occasional member of the sing along choir but  never remotely consider this behaviour as anything more than an admittedly naughty 90 minutes of bigotry. In essence someone who saw and still sees himself as a modern progressive citizen who in his own mind never consciously allowed sectarianism to cloud his judgement in his entire business life. Someone who recognises however that because the majority of his friends and acquaintances have similar views  to him he could possibly be out of touch with the offence that this culture causes in the wider Scottish society.
IMO
This is the position I reckon John Gilligan finds himself in today.
A genuinely  nice and likeable guy with an excellent business record who indulged himself by taking on a job with TRFC almost certainly as a means of gaining some weekend pleasure in his retirement
Someone who would have been appalled by the on-going and recently degenerate behaviour of the lunatic fringe who continue to  disgrace the club.
And someone who may well  do walking away for that reason more than any other
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
It would be interesting to see if this view is shared by others who have also come across John in his business life

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on11:22 pm - Apr 16, 2017


OCCAMAPRIL 16, 2017 at 18:23  
WRT events at Ross County: probably my errant memory and Fair Play wishful thinking but – have there not been examples in Europe of players picking themselves off the floor after falling to tell the referee that there had been no contact ergo no penalty awarded? Has a manager ever told his player to miss a spot kick after an unjust award?

The player is likely to receive a two match suspension for simulation, but the bottom line is his cheating gained his club a crucial point so job done. He is not the first player to have cheated although it was one of the more blatant cases in recent times. Cheating is not restricted to Ross County players and we all know that.  Perhaps it’s time for the punishment to be far more severe.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:37 am - Apr 17, 2017


easyJamboApril 16, 2017 at 22:55
“Looks like we won’t need live coverage of the Fraudco trial from James Doleman….Craig Whyte is apparently covering it himself.”
________________
What’s he like???!
But it could be fun?
or are witnesses now free to withdraw their witness statements in case the accused starts throwing some mud? Could that be an angle?

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on1:51 am - Apr 17, 2017


Regarding Ross County’s fortuitous penalty today, I distinctly remember being told “these things even themselves out over a season” when John Guidetti gained an unwarranted penalty at Tynecastle two or three seasons back, when the officials inexplicably awarded Celtic a penalty despite there being no contact from a Hearts player when Guidetti fell on his posterior in the penalty box. Whether or not it was deliberate had little bearing on what transpired to be the crucial first goal of the game. 

Similarly, those of us who support so-called ‘diddy teams’ might rejoice in the karma invoked by Scott Brown’s sending off in Dingwall, considering most referees seem to allow Brown between five and ten fouls on average per game before having the temerity to book him! His airborn assault on a Hearts player a few months back had red card written all over it, yet he never even received a yellow, as I recall. Kenny Miller immaculately reproduced Brown’s thuggish off-the-ground two-footed lunge in the last Celtic-Rangers game, resulting in posters on this site being apoplectic with rage! 

Whilst I appreciate my sentiments won’t go down well considering the established demographics of this site, please bear in mind this is the Scottish Football Monitor, a site designed to discuss all perceived injustices, and not confined solely to dissecting the trials and tribulations of a dead club and its parentally challenged offspring. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:14 am - Apr 17, 2017


JOHN CLARK
APRIL 17, 2017 at 00:37
======================================

I’m not sure if you are being a wee bit facetious re witnesses John, but just in case anyone doesn’t know. People don’t get to choose if they are a witness of not. If you have evidence to give and you are cited to appear then that is not an optional thing. You don’t get to decide whether you give evidence or not.

There are some instances where someone is not compellable, but that is very much the exception. 

View Comment

oddjobPosted on8:24 am - Apr 17, 2017


Highlander
Fortunately for Celtic, the Championship has already been won, so the simulation by the Ross player was not costly to them.
The same cannot be said about the other five clubs fighting to avoid relegation. The point gained by Ross could prove to be costly for teams not involved in yesterday’s match.
With regard to Brown’s “tackle”, I wonder if you witnessed the assault by O’Brien on Sinclair early in the first half? Robertson awarded a free kick, but did not produce a card of any colour.
 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:34 am - Apr 17, 2017


HIGHLANDERAPRIL 17, 2017 at 01:51  

Regarding Ross County’s fortuitous penalty today …

Whilst I appreciate my sentiments won’t go down well considering the established demographics of this site…
====================================

I think it is worth bearing in mind that the top division of the SPFL is already won, by quite some distance. The division is now post-split and the top six are decided.

If anyone loses out through the player’s blatant dive and the match officials’ failing to do their job properly it won’t be any of the top six clubs, they are all already safe from relegation.

If any team loses out through yesterdays penalty, leading to a draw and a point for Ross County it will be one of the other bottom six teams. One of whom will be relegated and one of whom will be in a play-off with a top team from the Championship.

It is the supporters from those clubs who should be annoyed. It is they who will be effected and potentially seeing their team relegated.

Likewise, it is not Aberdeen or Celtic who will lose out on a European spot next season if Rangers get one, having run at trading losses for the last four year and continuing to do so. That is more of an issue for St Johnston, Hearts and Partick Thistle. Again it is one of them who will lose out. 

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on9:50 am - Apr 17, 2017


IF Celtic appeal the Brown red card is that cheating? What can they appeal against? The ref made the wrong call? Browns tackle did not use excessive force to not get the ball? 
I recall a few weeks ago the Ian Cathro said Hearts would appeal the Sam Nicholson red card for spitting in the linesman’s direction. After reviewing the footage Hearts did not appeal as it, rightly,  would not have been successful. Would an appeal by Celtic on Brown’s behalf be unsporting?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:51 am - Apr 17, 2017


EASYJAMBOAPRIL 16, 2017 at 22:55       14 Votes 
Looks like we won’t need live coverage of the Fraudco trial from James Dolemanhttps://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/876769/former-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-launches-twitter-page-to-post-updates-during-fraud-trial/
Craig Whyte is apparently covering it himself.
———————-
Could we end up with a situation by the witness states such and such, but craig whyte tweets that is completely wrong what the witness just stated,or tweet it never happened like that?
It could become very interesting reading James Doleman then reading craig whytes take on it at the same moment if that is what is allowed to happen. the craig whyte-twitter-page-to-post-updates-during-fraud-trial could have some squeaky bums on seats

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:56 am - Apr 17, 2017


TAMJARTMARQUEZAPRIL 17, 2017 at 09:50
IF Celtic appeal the Brown red card is that cheating?
No it’s in the rules they can appeal a straight red card.
the ref got the penalty wrong who’s to say he got the red card wrong

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:58 am - Apr 17, 2017


TAMJARTMARQUEZ
APRIL 17, 2017 at 09:50
=====================================

What on Earth is “unsporting” about appealing a straight red when you don’t think the foul merited a straight red.

Why would it be “cheating”.

The system is there to lodge an appeal where you think a mistake has been made. I’m sure it happens numerous times throughout the season.

Is it all “unsporting” or “cheating”. 

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on10:22 am - Apr 17, 2017


When asked if he had any complaints about the red card, Celtic boss Brendan Rodgers said: “No. Scotty has gone in and caught the boy late, but I’d have to see it again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39616097

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:25 am - Apr 17, 2017


I will be very surprised if Whyte is allowed to tweet about the evidence given at his trial, as that could be deemed to influence the jury, for as the world is today, the majority, at least, of the jury will be addicted to social media and regardless of what they are instructed to do, will, at the very least, be unable to avoid what others tell them Whyte has tweeted. The trial could descend into farce.

Could this be reverse psychology by Whyte? Hoping the court has no option other than to ban any reporting of the case, perhaps until he’s ready to publish his story – a nice little earner for him!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:39 am - Apr 17, 2017


TAMJARTMARQUEZAPRIL 17, 2017 at 10:22 1 Vote
When asked if he had any complaints about the red card, Celtic boss Brendan Rodgers said: “No. Scotty has gone in and caught the boy late, but I’d have to see it again.
—————————–
Maybe he looked at it again and thought there are grounds for an appeal. that’s not cheating or unsporting

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:52 am - Apr 17, 2017


Never mind, yesterday’s referee will have an early opportunity to “even things up”, as his next appointment is in Sunday’s Celtic v Rangers semi final when he will be one of the goal line officials.  Unless of course he develops a mysterious injury or illness during the week.

The penalty call on Sunday was matched in the Motherwell v ICT game on Saturday when the assistant referee decided that the ball had crossed the line for Motherwell’s 3rd goal when video footage suggested that it wasn’t even close.

However I wonder if the assistant saw a flash of yellow behind the line thinking it was the ball, but in fact it was the keeper’s glove which was also yellow.  It might help the officials if the keepers’ gloves cannot be the same colour as the ball.  There was a similar occurrence when Wes Foderingham handled the ball outside the box in the Cup quarter final against Hamilton.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:58 am - Apr 17, 2017


EASYJAMBO
APRIL 17, 2017 at 10:52 
It might help the officials if the keepers’ gloves cannot be the same colour as the ball.  There was a similar occurrence when Wes Foderingham handled the ball outside the box in the Cup quarter final against Hamilton.

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

As clear cut as the Ross County “penalty”.

If only there had been an assistant referee keeping up with the game and in line with the most advanced player.

View Comment

Comments are closed.