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 on11:11 am - Apr 21, 2017


Findlay seems to be developing how overspending at Rangers came about. Doesn’t seem to be giving Smith a hard time, who must, anyway, be a bit intimidated by the fact he is being asked these questions by someone who probably knows exactly how the spending was done at Rangers. Someone who might instantly know if Smith is not being as candid as he might have otherwise been.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:24 am - Apr 21, 2017


Effect of CL progress and the monies that can mean being discussed. Findlay has established that being knocked out in early/first round ‘money is gone’. I think he is establishing that a club budgeting as though CL progress is a given is bad financial management.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on11:26 am - Apr 21, 2017


Is it known what the £1,700,000 health and safety issue in the indictment refers to and was it ever dealt with?
The whole director asking director about director Abbott  and Costello sketch does seem a bit strange at least. The original Abbott and Costello sketch was a succession of honest mistakes if I recall correctly

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:27 am - Apr 21, 2017


Smith just said that both times he was sacked he didn’t get any notice. Just realised he might not mean ‘sacked from RFC’!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:30 am - Apr 21, 2017


Court adjourns.

View Comment

GiovanniPosted on11:40 am - Apr 21, 2017


Consider the following scenario: Dave King is ordered by the Court of Session to make the share offer as instructed by the TBA; he fails to do so and is in Contempt of Court. He remains in South Africa and ignores the Court of Session. The Court of Session issue an arrest warrant.

A plausible scenario I think.

However Dave King is apparently to be called as a key witness in the Craig Whyte “trial of the decade/century/millennium” and obviously he will fail to appear as he’d be arrested on landing in the UK.

What does Lady Tracey do? I’ve heard of trials abandoned because a key witness failed to appear.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:46 am - Apr 21, 2017


bfbpuzzledApril 21, 2017 at 11:26 (Edit) 
Is it known what the £1,700,000 health and safety issue in the indictment refers to and was it ever dealt with?
____________________

Good spot, BFB, and good question.

Four things to consider:

i) If it’s been dealt with, why would it be in the indictment? I’d suggest it wouldn’t be.
ii) I don’t think there is a creditor on the list for this amount, or one obviously related to H&S, so, if it’s not been paid, and is not an outstanding payment, it must be an ongoing matter, not yet dealt with as it hasn’t caused a financial liability, but is, instead, an estimate issued at an earlier date!
iii) The obvious guess might be, and I suspect it’s your guess too, is that it relates to work due, in 2011, in respect of work required to make an asset safe for people, employees or customers, to enter. If this is the case, I’d suggest that the £500,000 mentioned by King a while back doesn’t cover the liability, which will, by now, possibly have multiplied by a rather large factor!
iv) It’s in the indictment, so, if the case continues long enough, we must surely discover what it relates to!

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:57 am - Apr 21, 2017


The HSE liability would be in the indictment only if ‘Whyte’s Rangers oldco’ failed to pay it as he promised within the SPA that he would.  The fact Green or King’s Rangers Newco had subsequently paid it would be immaterial.

Whyte is being tried on what he promised to do within the SPA.  I don’t see where Findlay is going with this since fundamentally Whyte paid a pound.  Is Findlay going to argue he didn’t get value for money? 

Drawing on the Ticketus monies (if that is what he did – he denies it remember) is a bit of a red herring in this regard as far as Findlay is concerned but it is the smoking gun for the prosecution vis a vis Whyte claiming he had available unconditional funds to hand to do what he promised.  What he allegedly did after the event is equally immaterial hence pulling in McCoist (if reports are correct) seems equally pointless.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:30 pm - Apr 21, 2017


SmugasApril 21, 2017 at 11:57 (Edit)

I think it would have been documented within the accounts of TRFC if they’d settled an outstanding bill of £1.7m, so I doubt it has been settled by TRFC/RIFC. And why would they? If it was a liability owed by RFC, then it would be included on their list of creditors, unless Whyte had settled it during his reign, in which case I doubt it would now be on the indictment.

So, if it was not settled by Whyte, and is not included in the list of creditors, then it most likely relates to a Health & Safety order, estimated to cost, at the time, £1.7m, not carried out between Whyte taking over and the club entering administration. At this point, I must admit, I am not certain it’s not on the list of creditors, and may well be but not obviously as the result of an H&S issue.

I’d suggest that Whyte agreed to have whatever repairs were required under the H&S order, but didn’t comply, therefor, as far as the prosecution is concerned, fraudulently broke the agreement.

I’m maybe completely wrong, but work carried out under an H&S order to carry out safety work (on the stadium?) of £1.7m would have been highly visible, and, if it hasn’t been carried out, might well have escalated to the region of the figures bloggers like PMGB and JJ are suggesting, through deterioration and inflation.

As I suggested in my previous post, if the case continues long enough, we will eventually discover what the figure of £1.7m relates to.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:01 pm - Apr 21, 2017


Findlay’s cross examination has continued and the court has now adjourned for lunch as a document Findlay wanted to show to Smith wasn’t immediately available. The Crown have to locate it and copy it during lunch!

What drama19

Findlay is, I think, trying to determine the cause of Rangers’ financial woes, and, I expect, pinpoint who it was that caused them.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:03 pm - Apr 21, 2017


But to what end?  To try to show that they were sold a turkey and ignore the financial regulations surrounding the alleged source of funds (for the promises they subsequently didn’t keep)? 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:02 pm - Apr 21, 2017


SmugasApril 21, 2017 at 13:03 (Edit) 
But to what end?  To try to show that they were sold a turkey and ignore the financial regulations surrounding the alleged source of funds (for the promises they subsequently didn’t keep)?
_________________

I think it is common practice for both sides in court to, at the very least, set the scene for what happened next. It will also be in the defendant’s best interest if he can show he was dealing with someone who was no better than he was. Perhaps he will try to show that he, the defendant, was also ‘duped’ by someone well practiced in keeping his fellow directors, and leading employees, in the dark.

Apart from anything else, the relevance of what’s said today may well become obvious in the fullness of time. In most cases, especially those expected to last a few months, not all evidence will be of the ‘killer’ variety.

NB I am not talking about any specific case here, just my understanding of how it generally works in criminal cases. I had written it a bit differently, with suggestions of the whys and maybes, but then thought, oops…better be careful.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:09 pm - Apr 21, 2017


Case restarted, Findlay shows Smith minutes of meeting of 11 March 2011 and Smith has just mentioned ‘the EBT circumstance’!

I was hoping these three letters would come up today 04

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:10 pm - Apr 21, 2017


Findlay suggests an £80m tax bill would be the end of Rangers Football Club! I wonder how that could be!!!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:13 pm - Apr 21, 2017


Smith saying no discussion about administration while he was present. I think we are getting to the point of cross examination now…just as I have to head off to work11

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:15 pm - Apr 21, 2017


Looking forward to catching up with James Doleman’s tweets a bit later.

Can I say that James Doleman’s tweets are quite amazing? I don’t know how he can get so much complex information into 140 characters. Personally, I am fascinated by it all.

View Comment

BadgerbhoyPosted on2:33 pm - Apr 21, 2017


Findlay saying in court that the small tax bill was known on Mar 11.
So much for it crystallising after April 1.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:53 pm - Apr 21, 2017


bobcobbApril 21, 2017 at 09:53
‘….Conflict of interest is perhaps not the correct phrase, but the relationship between the three seems to be almost too close to allow truly objective proceedings.’
_______
In other fields,bobcobb, the word ‘incestuous’ might be used of such intimate relationships.
But, of course,such is the world-renowned if  self-proclaimed probity of our wee Scottish legal system, that it would be an act of the greatest temerity for anyone even to raise an eyebrow at such intimate relationship.
Incidentally, and most OT-ly, I had my eyebrows clipped , as part of my haircut [ well, actually,there’s more hair in the eyebrows than on the heid] by a smashing youngwoman  barber in Wellington Point this afternoon, ie, about 9 hours ago or so.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on2:54 pm - Apr 21, 2017


We have a winner for today!!!

From the Ranger Board Minutes pre Whyte takeover when they were allegedly discussing the threat and consequences of Administration…

 “Mr King insisted Rangers would always be afloat, either in an ocean or a small pond”
Findlay “Any idea what that means?
Smith “No”
Findlay “Me neither”

View Comment

TincksPosted on3:09 pm - Apr 21, 2017


BadgerbhoyApril 21, 2017 at 14:35

Please can everyone heed the polite request made by Tris.

Comments that call into question the veracity of a witness mid trial could cause a whole heap of trouble for SFM.

BP and Tris put a lot of effort into this keeping SFM up and running and it we all really need to help them keep on the right of this.

Excellent, factual updates from AJ on here and James Doleman on Twitter.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:23 pm - Apr 21, 2017


HighlanderApril 20, 2017 at 21:33
‘.. just incase any passing knuckle-dragging neanderthal thought of torching that address in an act of perceived revenge?’
_________
In principle, a valid point, Highlander.
But looking at wiki, the chances of any knuckle-dragging neanderthal being anywhere near that address ‘in passing’ are virtually nil! 
As an aside, for someone who , apparently, applied for legal aid, to be able to live at that address says a lot about his very charitable landlady/landlord.
Or about the personal wealth of someone who gives that address as his own, a resource undisclosed, and not able to be traced by people who perhaps might not be all that hellish interested in tracing it.
When I think of the greedy, grasping Rachman types in the London of my ‘looking for accommodation’ days in the 1960s, when, if I had ever needed to ask for legal aid, I’d have been given the bum’s rush, I wax indignant!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:16 pm - Apr 21, 2017


Thanks AJ for updates.
Ever thought of working for the DR ?  09

Very interesting start to proceedings.
Sir Cardigan…what’s he like ?!
Wish I was in court with a [discreet] bag of popcorn!

Typically, the rate of convictions for financial crimes is low, and exacerbated by case complexity and duration.

Regardless, the CPS – you would think – would have to be more than reasonably confident to proceed with such a high profile, lengthy and costly trial ?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:24 pm - Apr 21, 2017


AllyjamboApril 21, 2017 at 14:15
‘..Can I say that James Doleman’s tweets are quite amazing?
________
You cetainly can, Aj.
I have sat beside him on other ‘saga’ business when in two seconds flat he has captured the very essence and meat of what has been said.
So I know that he is a gifted observer and analyser of what he sees and hears.
And has the savvy to know the difference between’ reporting’ factually, and  airing a view on the interpretation of those facts.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:40 pm - Apr 21, 2017


From James Doleman:

McCoist is asked who the current captain of Rangers is.

Replies “David Weir I think”

Findlay notes is Lee Wallace.

————————————-

Ay caramba! Weir was relieved of the captaincy in 2011.

View Comment

dom16Posted on5:34 pm - Apr 21, 2017


Sorry Steve BC  
CPS is the English crown prosecution service
we have COPFS. Crown office procurator fiscal service (I think!)

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:46 pm - Apr 21, 2017


DOM16
APRIL 21, 2017 at 17:34
Sorry Steve BC  CPS is the English crown prosecution servicewe have COPFS. Crown office procurator fiscal service (I think!)
===============================================

I defer to your superior pedantry DOM16, but you know what I mean.

Having problems with my acronyms… 21

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:47 pm - Apr 21, 2017


TINCKSAPRIL 21, 2017 at 15:09 (EDIT)
STEVIEBCAPRIL 21, 2017 at 16:16 (EDIT)
JOHN CLARK
APRIL 21, 2017 at 16:24 (EDIT)

Thanks for the acknowledgements, guys. I have to admit I was engrossed in JD’s tweets and desperate to have someone to talk to about it all, would love to be in that courtroom. I just had to post about it and was a wee bit concerned it might come across as a bit naff if everyone else was following it ‘live’, though I am aware that maybe not everyone enjoys twitter, so might welcome updates on here.

I can’t believe how eventful the first day has been, with two very high profile witnesses being given an aparent easy ride, by someone they must both have been a bit chummy with, and certainly thought of themselves as something reaching hero status in his mind; until, boom, ‘the minutes say, Mr Smith…’

I had thought of saying, earlier on, how I hoped the EBTs would be mentioned, and lo and behold, they were. I just hope the impact they had on the debt and liquidation are fully explored as the trial progresses, and the reason why they were necessary – to give Rangers a sporting advantage, a bloody great one, too – is made clear. 

Some people on twitter were disdainful of Findlay, for giving his ‘mates’ an easy ride, but to me he was using what I suspect is his usual tactic, of letting the witness feel he was having that easy ride, then boom, the question that the defence had set him up for was asked. I can’t understand, though, why the prosecution have opened with two witnesses who’ve not said one word of evidence against the accused, then let Findlay cross-examine them.

I think the use of Findlay could be a masterstroke, for no one from RFC can give evidence without thinking that Findlay might know just how much they know, and spot an obvious lie.

If today was just the opener, what awaits…

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:09 pm - Apr 21, 2017


I’m just back from GHC where I manged join proceedings around midday after I had done what I needed to do in the East.

The surroundings in Court 4 are pretty decent. There were 27 seats set aside for the media, with around two thirds taken up, and a similar amount for Legal types. With 80-90 seats left to the public there is ample room for anyone who wishes to turn up and watch the case unfold.  For JC and others who may attend, the acoustics are good with the Judge, the witnesses and the prosecution and defence teams all audible.  It makes a welcome change from some of the preliminary hearings.

I won’t go over what was said in court, as James Doleman has covered it pretty well.

It was interesting to see the tactics of both sides with the two witnesses, Smith and McCoist.  Prentice for the Crown seemed intent to coax Smith into saying that the team needed investment around the time of the takeover and by implication Whyte had somehow failed to deliver on his promised £5M.  Findlay on the other hand sought to demonstrate that Smith knew the constraints that the club was under financially using previous Board minutes that showed that Smith was much more aware of the financial situation that he admitted to in his answers to earlier questions. 

The prosecution’s attempt to replicate that approach with McCoist seemed to, at least to me, backfire as McCoist acknowledged that he was able to bring in players and extend contracts.  Findlay was able to show evidence that the monetary value of the transfers and new contracts did represent a significant investment in the playing squad for 2011/12.

Andrew Dickson’s name came up a couple of times and it was acknowledged by Findlay that he will be appearing as a witness. Incidentally, McCoist was number 79 in the witness list. Let’s hope that not everyone who has been listed will be called.

I was sitting maybe 12-15 ft behind Whyte and noted that he was very attentive when Findlay was questioning witnesses, but less so when Prentice was speaking.

It was abundantly clear that Findlay’s knowledge of football boardrooms and managers helps his effectiveness when questioning football people. I thought he was very respectful with the two witnesses, but was still able to draw out answers that helped set the scene of what was going on at the club in 2010/2011. 

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on6:35 pm - Apr 21, 2017


JINGSO.JIMSIEAPRIL 21, 2017 at 16:40       3 Votes 
From James Doleman:
McCoist is asked who the current captain of Rangers is.
Replies “David Weir I think”
Findlay notes is Lee Wallace.

————————————————————————–
A contemptuous reply if ever there was one. Is Mr. McCoist feigning an air of disinterest as in ,my word I will be shocked when the truth comes out.I think Gordon Smith adopted the same pretence post admin. A lot of slopey shoulder.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:00 pm - Apr 21, 2017


GUNNERB

APRIL 21, 2017 at 18:35
—————————-

Don’t forget Sooper gave his occupation as ‘Football Analyst’.

Whoever employs him will be delighted at his up-to-date knowledge.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:09 pm - Apr 21, 2017


GUNNERBAPRIL 21, 2017 at 18:35 (EDIT)

James Doleman has explained on twitter that McCoist seemed not to hear the question properly, and seemed to assume Findlay was speaking of the time prior to administration. As he was being questioned about events around that time, not an unreasonable assumption by McCoist, I’d think.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:15 pm - Apr 21, 2017


GUNNERB
APRIL 21, 2017 at 18:35
…is Mr. McCoist feigning an air of disinterest as in ,my word I will be shocked when the truth comes out.I think Gordon Smith adopted the same pretence post admin. A lot of slopey shoulder.
===================================================

Yes and had been thinking as well : will Mr.Gordon “I know nothing about anything” Smith be called ?

A witness for the prosecution / defence / neither ?  14

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:31 pm - Apr 21, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 21, 2017 at 19:09
================================

Exactly what I was going to post AJ.

It’s just silly to suggest that he seriously thought that Davie Weir was the current Rangers’ captain. 

He obviously misunderstood given the line of questioning and thought he was being asked about the captain at the relevant time. 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:43 pm - Apr 21, 2017


HOMUNCULUS
APRIL 21, 2017 at 19:31

It’s just silly to suggest that he seriously thought that Davie Weir was the current Rangers’ captain…
=================================

Pesticides ? 09

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:48 pm - Apr 21, 2017


BOBCOBBAPRIL 21, 2017 at 09:53       18 Votes 
Just a quick question for our legal experts on here, if you’ll indulge me…
With Donald Findlay representing Craig White, we could have a scenario where a former Director of Rangers FC is cross examining a former chairman of Rangers FC on behalf of yet another former Chairman of Rangers FC…I’m sure it is all legal and above board but something just seems…not rightabout the whole thing, if you know what I mean? Conflict of interest is perhaps not the correct phrase, but the relationship between the three seems to be almost too close to allow truly objective proceedings.Can someone please clarify for a legal naif?
———————-
The 15 jurors were then asked if they had any reason, such as previously being a Rangers season ticket holder or the owner of a debenture seat that meant they could not judge the case fairly. None said they did and the trial commenced
———–
Just as well….All that would then have been needed was a ball and some players, and away you go.full club.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:12 pm - Apr 21, 2017


Cluster One April 21, 2017 at 19:48
——————————
Findlay will be restricted in terms of the time frame when he gets to question Murray.  I think that Murray asked for Findlay’s resignation back in 1999 so is highly unlikely to feature in the trial.  However that is not to say whether or not Findlay holds a grudge against Murray.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on8:19 pm - Apr 21, 2017


ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 21, 2017 at 19:09

HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 21, 2017 at 19:31

Thanks for the clarification/admonishment guys. Still wouldn’t trust the gardener as far as I could throw a..gardener.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on8:20 pm - Apr 21, 2017


SMUGASAPRIL 21, 2017 at 11:57
     “Whyte is being tried on what he promised to do within the SPA. I don’t see where Findlay is going with this since fundamentally Whyte paid a pound. Is Findlay going to argue he didn’t get value for money?”
         ———————————————————————————————————————
   Despite the seriousness of the venue, it should be remembered that there is an element of theatre involved and scene setting. Although season ticket and debenture holders were excluded from the jury, it would not be un reasonable to suggest there will be a percentage of blue facing jurors. 
   We are but mortals, and there has been a great deal written and perceptions created, (rightly or wrongly).
   Part of Findlay’s aims will be to dispel myths and beliefs, and I would say it was round 1 to Findlay today. 
   With the questioning of AMc and Walter One-name, RRM were shown to be a bit one-track minded when it came to spending OPM in the pursuit of glory, regardless of the danger to the club.   
   It was this after all that put them in soapy bubble in the first place. Dispelling RRM good, Craigy bad, perceptions may be a large part of his strategy. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:25 pm - Apr 21, 2017


EASYJAMBOAPRIL 21, 2017 at 18:09       10 Votes 
I’m just back from GHC where I manged join proceedings around midday after I had done what I needed to do in the East.
The surroundings in Court 4 are pretty decent. There were 27 seats set aside for the media, with around two thirds taken up, and a similar amount for Legal types. With 80-90 seats left to the public there is ample room for anyone who wishes to turn up and watch the case unfold.  For JC and others who may attend, the acoustics are good with the Judge, the witnesses and the prosecution and defence teams all audible.  It makes a welcome change from some of the preliminary hearings.
————————
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 2h Replying to @jamesdoleman On Mr McCoist today think he just misheard question (acoustics are not great) replied about Rangers captain was when he was manager.
———————-
EASYJAMBO you may just have very good hearing19

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:42 pm - Apr 21, 2017


EASYJAMBO
APRIL 21, 2017 at 20:12
Cluster One April 21, 2017 at 19:48
——————————
Findlay will be restricted in terms of the time frame when he gets to question Murray.  I think that Murray asked for Findlay’s resignation back in 1999 so is highly unlikely to feature in the trial.  However that is not to say whether or not Findlay holds a grudge against Murray.
=============================

As I have watched plenty of episodes of the ‘The Good Wife’, ‘LA Law’, etc. over the years – I think my point is pertinent !

If, one was to present Whyte as a patsy, was duped, or was not any worse than those who ran Rangers plc…

Wouldn’t you want Minty up first ?
No chance of running out of time to question him thoroughly.
Everyone else can feel a bit more relaxed / forthcoming, as Minty is the one being singled out for prodding with a stick ?

I rest my case.  

 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:01 pm - Apr 21, 2017


CORRUPT OFFICIALAPRIL 21, 2017 at 20:20  
SMUGASAPRIL 21, 2017 at 11:57     “Whyte is being tried on what he promised to do within the SPA. I don’t see where Findlay is going with this since fundamentally Whyte paid a pound. Is Findlay going to argue he didn’t get value for money?”         ———————————————————————————————————————   Despite the seriousness of the venue, it should be remembered that there is an element of theatre involved and scene setting. Although season ticket and debenture holders were excluded from the jury, it would not be un reasonable to suggest there will be a percentage of blue facing jurors.    We are but mortals, and there has been a great deal written and perceptions created, (rightly or wrongly).   Part of Findlay’s aims will be to dispel myths and beliefs, and I would say it was round 1 to Findlay today.    With the questioning of AMc and Walter One-name, RRM were shown to be a bit one-track minded when it came to spending OPM in the pursuit of glory, regardless of the danger to the club.      It was this after all that put them in soapy bubble in the first place. Dispelling RRM good, Craigy bad, perceptions may be a large part of his strategy. 
____________

Not only that, he has shown that RRM may have a blind spot as far as events of 2011 are concerned! The jury might forget this exchange by the time they have to make their decision, but I am sure Mr Findlay will remind them of this in his summation. Can’t do any defence any harm to establish this early on!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:12 pm - Apr 21, 2017


STEVIEBCAPRIL 21, 2017 at 20:42  
EASYJAMBOAPRIL 21, 2017 at 20:12Cluster One April 21, 2017 at 19:48——————————Findlay will be restricted in terms of the time frame when he gets to question Murray.  I think that Murray asked for Findlay’s resignation back in 1999 so is highly unlikely to feature in the trial.  However that is not to say whether or not Findlay holds a grudge against Murray.=============================
As I have watched plenty of episodes of the ‘The Good Wife’, ‘LA Law’, etc. over the years – I think my point is pertinent !
If, one was to present Whyte as a patsy, was duped, or was not any worse than those who ran Rangers plc…
Wouldn’t you want Minty up first ?No chance of running out of time to question him thoroughly.Everyone else can feel a bit more relaxed / forthcoming, as Minty is the one being singled out for prodding with a stick ?
I rest my case.  
_____________

I think you might have to pay closer attention to those courtroom dramas in future, Stevie, as in every one I’ve ever watched, it’s the prosecution who present their case first, and so call all their witnesses to the stand before the defence has their turn! Certainly it was the prosecution who called both witnesses to the stand today.

As I said earlier, I can’t understand why the prosecution gave Findlay such an easy start and have given him the oportunity to set the tone.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:54 pm - Apr 21, 2017


[Thanks AJ, I’ll go back to sleep now. 😉 ]
=====================================
“Rangers Tax-Case‏ @rangerstaxcase 4h4 hours ago
MoreReplying to @Barcabhoy1 @jamesdoleman

It has no connection to this case, so I can answer that.
Yes. Walter Smith was an EBT recipient.”

View Comment

occamPosted on10:02 pm - Apr 21, 2017


I bow to those with better knowledge in court matters but the last thing we want here is a mistrial for whatever reason.  I do not imagine, either , that any one individual or SFM wish to find themselves – even inadvertently – in contempt! 
Remember, ignorance is no excuse!
My inclination at this stage would be to hold fire, speculation and wishful thinking and do nothing to prejudice proceedings.  Patience and ‘the long game’ must be the priorities.
Let the truth appear in due course!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:07 pm - Apr 21, 2017


StevieBC April 21, 2017 at 21:54
“Rangers Tax-Case‏ @rangerstaxcase 4h4 hours ago
MoreReplying to @Barcabhoy1 @jamesdoleman
It has no connection to this case, so I can answer that.
Yes. Walter Smith was an EBT recipient.”
========================
Checking back my old docs, HMRC produced an assessment on Waldo for tax year 2002/03 of £53,333.  The National Insurance Contribution was assessed at £15,733

That assessment would be on the grossed up figure meaning that he received contributions into his EBT of £80,000.

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on10:32 pm - Apr 21, 2017


easyJamboApril 21, 2017 at 22:07   2 Votes 
StevieBC April 21, 2017 at 21:54 “Rangers Tax-Case‏ @rangerstaxcase 4h4 hours ago MoreReplying to @Barcabhoy1 @jamesdoleman It has no connection to this case, so I can answer that. Yes. Walter Smith was an EBT recipient.” ======================== Checking back my old docs, HMRC produced an assessment on Waldo for tax year 2002/03 of £53,333.  The National Insurance Contribution was assessed at £15,733
That assessment would be on the grossed up figure meaning that he received contributions into his EBT of £80,000.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not a lot when you consider his salary at the time. Was he limiting his exposure off the back of good advice?
Or does the payment not actually equate to his time at Rangers?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:33 pm - Apr 21, 2017


occam April 21, 2017 at 22:02 
I bow to those with better knowledge in court matters but the last thing we want here is a mistrial for whatever reason.  I do not imagine, either , that any one individual or SFM wish to find themselves – even inadvertently – in contempt!  Remember, ignorance is no excuse! My inclination at this stage would be to hold fire, speculation and wishful thinking and do nothing to prejudice proceedings.  Patience and ‘the long game’ must be the priorities. Let the truth appear in due course!
=====================
Lady Stacey has effectively lifted reporting restrictions, by allowing accredited journalists to tweet proceedings live from the courtroom.  There is therefore nothing to prevent anyone discussing the tweets made by those individuals.

However, the jurors were warned not to discuss the case, or to search for anything on the internet, and generally be wary of social media. 

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on11:06 pm - Apr 21, 2017


occamApril 21, 2017 at 22:02 
I bow to those with better knowledge in court matters but the last thing we want here is a mistrial for whatever reason.  I do not imagine, either , that any one individual or SFM wish to find themselves – even inadvertently – in contempt!  Remember, ignorance is no excuse! My inclination at this stage would be to hold fire, speculation and wishful thinking and do nothing to prejudice proceedings.  Patience and ‘the long game’ must be the priorities. Let the truth appear in due course!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you want truth or justice? They are not the same thing.

View Comment

Gym TrainerPosted on11:55 pm - Apr 21, 2017


STEVIEBCAPRIL 21, 2017 at 20:42 

Wouldn’t you want Minty up first ?No chance of running out of time to question him thoroughly.Everyone else can feel a bit more relaxed / forthcoming, as Minty is the one being singled out for prodding with a stick ?

You’re too young, Ironside is what you need to study… It always goes down to the wire until the last minute piece of evidence (wielded by the wheelchair-bound Ironside) is unearthed to save/convict the accused.
Minty used to be in metals… and lost his legs… the parallels are uncanny 01

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:57 am - Apr 22, 2017


BADGERBHOYAPRIL 21, 2017 at 14:33       17 Votes 
Findlay saying in court that the small tax bill was known on Mar 11.So much for it crystallising after April 1.

====%%%%===%
Was that actually said by Findlay or extrapolated from the indictment?
I can find no mention in James Doleman’s tweets and Andrew Black asked Smith if he knew about ebts hovering about in March 2011. That is far from Findlay saying bill was known in March.
It was but did DF or anyone say that specifically or agree it was true? If not Regan can relax
for now.
Separately Smith was manager at Everton  (98 to 2004) when he was paid by an ebt in tax year 2002/03 .
Ball was transferred to Rangers in 2001. Just saying.
 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on7:57 am - Apr 22, 2017


And again, in the interests of accuracy on which the site rightly prides itself.  There was a segment yesterday regarding a previous board meeting(s) where the quote “someone has put the club in a position that could cost it a lot of money”. I certainly took from this that they were referring to tax liabilities but I see the DR (Arrooogah- accuracy alert) the DR is reporting that it was actually referencing a succession clause in McCoists contract.  Findlays line essentially being to establish that Whyte inherited a poison pill on that score.  

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:31 am - Apr 22, 2017


SMUGASAPRIL 22, 2017 at 07:57 (EDIT) 
And again, in the interests of accuracy on which the site rightly prides itself.  There was a segment yesterday regarding a previous board meeting(s) where the quote “someone has put the club in a position that could cost it a lot of money”. I certainly took from this that they were referring to tax liabilities but I see the DR (Arrooogah- accuracy alert) the DR is reporting that it was actually referencing a succession clause in McCoists contract.  Findlays line essentially being to establish that Whyte inherited a poison pill on that score
_______________

I seem to remember that Chalotte Fakes revealed some evidence that Whyte wasn’t happy that he’d been burdened with McCoist as he didn’t rate him at all, but his hands had been tied by the contract. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:59 am - Apr 22, 2017


BOGS DOLLOX
APRIL 21, 2017 at 23:06 Do you want truth or justice? They are not the same thing.
================================================

That’s an interesting view. How do you see them as different. 

View Comment

theredpillPosted on10:10 am - Apr 22, 2017


allyjambo
I seem to remember that Chalotte Fakes revealed some evidence that Whyte wasn’t happy that he’d been burdened with McCoist as he didn’t rate him at all, but his hands had been tied by the contract.
Craigy is not as daft as he looks 12

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:46 am - Apr 22, 2017


One exchange between Findlay and Smith, which James Doleman didn’t fully explain in his tweets, has been highlighted by the Daily Record.  It relates to McCoist’s contract prior to him taking over as manager. Basically, if McCoist wasn’t given the manager’s job, then he would have been entitled to a large pay-off. If I recall correctly, the information was disclosed in a set of Board Minutes from November 2010 with the comments attributed to Martin Bain.

Rangers would have had to pay Ally McCoist an “enormous” sum if they did not make him manager, Craig Whyte’s fraud trial heard yesterday.

And the club’s former star striker signed a gold-plated contract to take over from mentor Walter Smith while the club’s financial situation was “perilous”, the court heard.

Donald Findlay QC, defending, told the court that if assistant boss McCoist did not take over from Smith as manager it would have cost the club an “enormous” amount of money.

Findlay said: “Somebody has put the club in a position that if they don’t follow the line of succession it is going to cost the club a small fortune.”

Smith said: “I had no idea that was the case.”

Findlay said: “Extraordinary isn’t it?”

Smith said: “Mr McCoist obviously negotiates his own contracts, so he’s possibly a bit brighter than I am.”

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on11:24 am - Apr 22, 2017


It will be interesting to see Findlay’s case develop. Purely as a guess I suspect that it will be that Rangers was a total financial basked case before Whyte took over and that if anything he is the one who was “duped”. Findlay will do whatever he needs to in order to have Whyte acquitted. 

The really interesting witnesses I suspect will be Murray, Bain, King and whoever represents Ticketus. It will be interesting to see if anyone from Collyer Bristow is called, and people like Grier, who are no longer on the sheet so can be used as witnesses. 

Remember it is up to the prosecution to prove their case, not for the defence to prove theirs. All Findlay has to do is create enough doubt in the minds of the Jury. 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on12:02 pm - Apr 22, 2017


Reading James Doleman’s Twitter feed from the Craig Whyte trial yesterday, and the questions put to Smith and McCoist in court. Some of them were fairly obvious questions which could have been asked by any journalist at some point in the past six years, yet how many times have they handed them both a platform to present a completely unchallenged view that Rangers had very manageable debt levels prior to Whyte taking over.  Also, I understand James was allowed to Tweet as an ‘Accredited Journalist’ yet as far as I can see no media outlet today told us as much as he did yesterday. This could of course mean the non Internet user having a warped view of actual proceedings. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on1:00 pm - Apr 22, 2017


UPTHEHOOPS
APRIL 22, 2017 at 12:02  … yet how many times have they handed them both a platform to present a completely unchallenged view that Rangers had very manageable debt levels prior to Whyte taking over.
==================================

Rangers was a loss making business based on purely domestic income. The only way they broke even or ran at a profit was good European income or sale of players’ registrations. Loss making businesses cannot easily cope with that level of debt. 

For clarity Celtic are in pretty much the same position.

The notion that the debt was manageable is predicated on regular success in Europe or large profits from player trading. When Whyte took over they were knocked out of Europe in the early stages. He then used the tax money he had collected (both income tax and VAT) in order to simply keep the business going. He stole from all of us to keep a football team going. 

They died because they couldn’t handle this easily manageable debt. The debt was already there because of the previous regime, and it died because McCoist and his team failed in Europe. Ironically Whyte is probably the person least to blame for the club’s demise. The theories that he was put there purely to be the person in charge when the inevitable happened are not that fanciful. 

What happened post administration is separate argument

View Comment

FinlochPosted on2:05 pm - Apr 22, 2017


One day I’d be interested to know what this all costs and who has authorised each of the steps and budgets along the way.

and while I’m on “Why oh why do we have big cup games played in Glasgow with early kick offs involving out of Glasgow teams playing to vast gaps in our third rate Nationsl Stadium”?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on2:18 pm - Apr 22, 2017


Two words.

tee.   Vee.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:22 pm - Apr 22, 2017


HomunculusApril 22, 2017 at 13:00      i 5 Votes 
UPTHEHOOPS APRIL 22, 2017 at 12:02  … yet how many times have they handed them both a platform to present a completely unchallenged view that Rangers had very manageable debt levels prior to Whyte taking over. ==================================
Rangers was a loss making business based on purely domestic income. The only way they broke even or ran at a profit was good European income or sale of players’ registrations. Loss making businesses cannot easily cope with that level of debt. 
For clarity Celtic are in pretty much the same position.
The notion that the debt was manageable is predicated on regular success in Europe or large profits from player trading. When Whyte took over they were knocked out of Europe in the early stages. He then used the tax money he had collected (both income tax and VAT) in order to simply keep the business going. He stole from all of us to keep a football team going. 
They died because they couldn’t handle this easily manageable debt. The debt was already there because of the previous regime, and it died because McCoist and his team failed in Europe. Ironically Whyte is probably the person least to blame for the club’s demise. The theories that he was put there purely to be the person in charge when the inevitable happened are not that fanciful. 
What happened post administration is separate argument
======================
Yup they were a loss making business for a long time kept afloat by the bank but in August 2008 Rangers had the opportunity to take a different path leading away from liquidation.
The men at the crossroads were Walter Smith and Sir David Murray and the circumstances in which the chose the wrong direction  can be found in some detail at
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/no-sporting-advantage-my-arse/ 
That decision was criminally reckless giving what it has led to.

(Celtic are in the same position but tend to keep  the debt level manageable in that it can be covered by a player sale.) hence McGeady, Van Dyke, Forster, Wanyama etc being sold.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on3:59 pm - Apr 22, 2017


AULDHEID
APRIL 22, 2017 at 15:22 
(Celtic are in the same position but tend to keep  the debt level manageable in that it can be covered by a player sale.) hence McGeady, Van Dyke, Forster, Wanyama etc being sold.
=====================================

I agree, but it wasn’t always so. In the year Celtic got to the UEFA final the debt level was about £18m. A conscious decision was made to sort that and that was put in place.

A lot of the Celtic support were very unhappy about that and there was a lot of “We need to speculate to accumulate, spend money to get to the next level” type discussion. The board and Peter Lawwell in particular were vilified. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on6:02 pm - Apr 22, 2017


I can’t begin to imagine the amount of research that went into Auldheid’s article on CQN.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:22 pm - Apr 22, 2017


AULDHEIDAPRIL 22, 2017 at 15:22
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/no-sporting-advantage-my-arse/
Very good read that article

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:04 pm - Apr 22, 2017


Scottish courts and tribunials.                                                                                                                                        The following motions were granted, unopposed, on Thursday 13th April  
 
A184/16 The Rangers Football Club Ltd v Charles Green &c
 Kennedys Scotland.
———————–
                                                                    
 
  Thursday 27th April Starred Motion
between 9.00am and 9.30am
 
P115/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under para 75
 Shepherd & Wedderburn
 Wright Johnston & Mackenzie LLP
—————
MORE COURT CASES COMING THICK AND FAST.
Anyone remember what these two are for again?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:45 pm - Apr 22, 2017


Cluster One April 22, 2017 at 22:04
————————
The first one goes back to the middle of last year when Rangers took action against a number of former directors including, Green, Stockbridge and Ahmad for allegedly agreeing poor deals for the club, e.g. naming rights for £1.

The action was abandoned last month at a hearing in front of Lord Brailsford.  His lordship ruled that Rangers should pay the costs of all the defendants in the action.  I suspect that the “unopposed” motion submitted last week was related to those costs.

The second action is a new(ish) one which was first heard by Lord Tyre last month.  I believe that Para 75 relates to the fiduciary responsibilities of the administrators in an insolvency process, so I think this is the action initiated by BDO against Duff & Phelps.  I know that Whitehouse and Clark complained about the action because it had come a week before the five year time limit was due to expire.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gfJ-DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=orders+under+para75+insolvency&source=bl&ots=CKWWxMgt8Z&sig=ZAb8LL43i0Ou-ViUqo62nqqlN-c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWnZW1g7nTAhVRJ1AKHR2lBjYQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=orders%20under%20para75%20insolvency&f=false

Developing story 07

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:22 pm - Apr 22, 2017


HOMUNCULUS APRIL 22, 2017 at 15:59
The difference between Celtic’s decision to reign in spending in 2004 and SDM’S decision in 2008 to do the opposite is stark and the consequences formed the ongoing debate on CQN thereafter that I well remember taking part in.
Peter Lawwell in particular came in for a lot of criticism but whilst I don’t agree with his stance on some matters, whilst understanding why he takes them, if I were him I’d want to weild a scythe through the parties who caused him so much misery.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:24 pm - Apr 22, 2017


To clarify I don’t mean his critics in the Celtic support, I mean those who made the consequences of Celtic’s prudent decision so difficult for him and Celtic.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:53 am - Apr 23, 2017


easyJamboApril 22, 2017 at 22:45
‘… I believe that Para 75 relates to the fiduciary responsibilities of the administrators in an insolvency process, so I think this is the action initiated by BDO against Duff & Phelps. I know that Whitehouse and Clark complained about the action because it had come a week before the five year time limit was due to expire.’
________
eJ, well remembered!

The minute that Lord Hodge held back for a short time from discharging the Administrators I have been asking myself whether the sale of the assets  could be declared null and void if it were ever proved that the Administrators had been  party to dirty tricks?’

Assuming that the Para 75 mentioned in the extract to which you give the link is Para 75 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, I’ve had a wee read of the Schedule to see if the answer might be there.

Somewhat disappointingly, the Court ‘s powers in such circumstances seem limited:

“(4)     On an examination under this paragraph into a person’s conduct the court may order him—

(a)to repay, restore or account for money or property;
(b)to pay interest;
(c)to contribute a sum to the company’s property by way of compensation for breach of duty or misfeasance…..”

No doubt Parliament recognised that to give the Courts the power to annul a questionable asset-sale might creat tremendous legal problems.

Still………..13

View Comment

jimboPosted on7:19 am - Apr 23, 2017


Just listened to the 7am Radio Scotland news.  The announcer couldn’t help throwing in the term ‘Old Firm’.  Why not say ‘The Glasgow Derby’?

They (BBC) know this OF term upsets a huge demographic in Scotland – and not just Celtic fans!  It’s like they are sticking two fingers up at us.  Glasgow Derby is inoffensive and much more accurate.

There was a time when the relationship between Celtic and Rangers (as was) was such that the terminology was appropriate.  But those days are gone now, at least I sincerely hope they are.

So, Glasgow Derby it is R. Scotland, hope you are reading.

The Clumpany has a good take on it.
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/

View Comment

jimboPosted on7:40 am - Apr 23, 2017


When I said “those days are gone now, at least I sincerely hope they are”, I meant that I hope there is no special relationship with the new club now based at Ibrox. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on8:00 am - Apr 23, 2017


At last a BBC article about the SC Semi Final without a reference to ‘The Old Firm’ (there are some links within the article which does refer to OF).  There is no author attributed to this piece but guess where I found it?  In the front page of the main BBC UK News website, so every chance it was written in London.
I hope BBC Scotland is paying attention.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39612250

View Comment

neepheidPosted on8:39 am - Apr 23, 2017


An excellent article  on Dave King from twohundredpercent.

http://twohundredpercent.net/rangers-dave-king/

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:23 am - Apr 23, 2017


HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 22, 2017 at 15:59  
I agree, but it wasn’t always so. In the year Celtic got to the UEFA final the debt level was about £18m. A conscious decision was made to sort that and that was put in place.
A lot of the Celtic support were very unhappy about that and there was a lot of “We need to speculate to accumulate, spend money to get to the next level” type discussion. The board and Peter Lawwell in particular were vilified.

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

Fergus McCann was also vilified by some because he wouldn’t match the spending levels of Rangers under David Murray. There were two good reasons for that though. Firstly, Fergus believed a business should operate reasonably within its means. Secondly, Rangers had the code to the bank safe, from the same bank which tried to put Celtic out of business until Fergus stepped in.  I really don’t think this issue has ever been properly addressed, probably because the media would never want to enter into an institutional bias debate, but that is clearly what it was in my view.

At the end of the day though, Celtic are where they are, and the rest of the clubs in Scotland are also operated within their means. ‘Rangers’ are where they are, and the Bank of Scotland which supported them to their nine in a row has long gone. ‘Hell mend them all’ as my Gran used to say. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:31 am - Apr 23, 2017


EASYJAMBOAPRIL 22, 2017 at 22:45
———-
Thanks for reply.
The following motions were granted, unopposed, on Thursday 13th April A184/16 The Rangers Football Club Ltd v Charles Green &c Kennedys Scotland.
—————————-
The first one goes back to the middle of last year
His lordship ruled that Rangers should pay the costs of all the defendants in the action. I suspect that the “unopposed” motion submitted last week was related to those costs.
————-
They (rangers) have been told to pay up then and cover the costs of all the defendants in the action.
Am i getting this right? If so any idea how much they will have to pay and when they have to pay?
————-
was that the case where Green even as an ex director had a clause that the club/ company still had to cover any legal costs that may come his way?

View Comment

Comments are closed.