The Case for a New SFA.


Billy Boyce 3rd October 2015 at 1:13 pm Indeed, what do …

Comment on The Case for a New SFA. by Homunculus.

Billy Boyce 3rd October 2015 at 1:13 pm

Indeed, what do they seek to achieve by doing things like releasing private details. I don’t see how it can in any way be a good thing.

At best it is totally neutral, at worst it leads to people being threatened and abused.

It is little different to the former managers “name names” disgrace.

Homunculus Also Commented

The Case for a New SFA.

I took the view last night that limiting discussion to what had been reported in the newspapers would be within acceptable parameters. However as I am not the person at risk in this then that was not my decision to make. I fully understand and appreciate that others have to protect their own position.

Sorry for any inconvenience this has caused. 

No worries H. Thanks for your understanding.

The Case for a New SFA.
Danish Pastry 16th October 2015 at 11:06 pm

Great read DP, thanks for posting the link, it really does paint the picture of what happened.

Assuming it’s accurate of course. 

The Case for a New SFA.
Given the five names involved, three we know were involved in the takeover. This is public knowledge and has been well reported.

Two were the joint administrators, this is a matter of public record and authorised by the Court. They claimed not to be conflicted as they had taken no part in the takeover.

However according to the report 

It is alleged that they conspired to “acquire and obtain by fraud a majority and controlling stake in the shareholding of Rangers.”

So all five were allegedly involved, some time in 2010, to fraudulently acquire the business. Without getting involved in too much conjecture, I find it very interesting that the joint administrators have been charged with being involved before the initial transaction even took place. Particularly given the role they subsequently filled and the integral part they played in the next chapter.

There is not a lot new today, though I would suggest something like that is. It tends to suggest things may have been less reactive and more proactive.

Recent Comments by Homunculus

Moving On Time?
John Clark 21st December 2020 at 23:22

I think the point is that the business has to record the difference between the purchase price of the assets, and their value, in the next set of accounts.

So what they are basically saying (normally) is that we bought that bakery business (for example) for £100 pounds, buy the tangible assets, the ovens etc, are only worth £80 so we paid other £20 for the existing customer base, the reputation etc, and that is just referred to in it's totality as the "goodwill".

As with  lot of accountancy stuff it all just looks like smoke and mirror to lay people like me. 

In Rangers case the tangible assets were, in their opinion worth a whole lot more than what they paid, but they still have to record that figure and like I have been saying, that is the dead giveaway and admission that they underpaid.

I suspect it will be part of BDO's case against the administrator.

As ever this is very much my layman's understanding with apologies to those who actually understand these things.

Moving On Time?
John Clark 18th December 2020 at 18:41

If I remember correctly there was a whole load of discussion wih regards the quality of some of the items and it turned out some was made in China, some was made in India and I think some was made in Europe, I have no idea which manufacturer actually made the stuff but I suspect it was just factories who were able to produce what was required so long as they were given the materials and the patterns.

I don't think that's too unusual but I have no experience in the field. 

Moving On Time?
Timtim 16th December 2020 at 19:54

Clearly the King is dead for Keith.

He has changed sides to the one on which his bread is now buttered.

To be fair on the current board, King's move was a bit off, even for him. He is trying to milk the fans for all he can, the board are not happy about that because that was an integral part of their plan.

They are never going to raise the full amount, certainly not quickly, but I believe he has said they can buy his shares in tranches so he could be getting regular payments from them for quite some time. 

Moving On Time?
John Clark 14th December 2020 at 17:13

I think BDO's £29m civil action against the administrator is more likely to bring out more of the truth than a botched criminal action by Crown Office as reported to them by Police Scotland.

BDO have taken their time, presumably investigated the matter properly and think they have enough to take the matter to the civil Courts. I would be surprised if they don't instruct top civil lawyers to carry out the action on their behalf. 

Bearing in mind BDO have probably already spent a lot of the money they have brought in, another £29m would be a nice wee addition to the pot.

Moving On Time?
John Clark 13th December 2020 at 14:02


One thing that still puzzles me is why, it seems, none of the other bidders to purchase the club to keep it going as a 'going concern' did not squeal at the time about the arbitrary selection of Green as the 'preferred' one who could pick up the assets cheap, while the club went into liquidation?

Why Green? why did the Administrators think that would best for them, for the creditors? A short bidding war for the assets would surely have raised at least a few tens of thousands more for the creditors.


Absolutely none of that was a factor in the administrator's decision making from what I can see. The creditors were irrelevant. 

They were working towards a pre-determined outcome involving Whyte and Green, There may have been a bit of improvisation when the CVA was rejected and Whyte was no longer required but other than that I firmly believe it was a pre-determined outcome. Let's wait and see what is determined by the ongoing proceedings. 

Remember the sale did not go ahead with the preferred bidder / chosen one. The assets were sold to another company with a very similar name, Sevco Scotland Ltd. No-one seems to ever have answered the question, when was that agreed. I believe novation requires all parties to agree to it. 

The aim was a CVA, a debt free Rangers, still the same club, still in the top division of the league etc.

When that was rejected and liquidation (ongoing) started there was a wee bit of the truth, then the re-writing of history, then where we are now. 


About the author