After making inquiries into progress on Resolution 12 to the Celtic AGM of 2013 there is little doubt in my mind that the SFA made a serious error in the process of UEFA licensing.
Here are some facts:
- UEFA does not issue licences to clubs who have due tax bills outstanding,
- UEFA require the SFA to satisfy themselves of a club’s eligibility for a licence and that clubs have provided proof no overdue tax payable exists,
- UEFA also require a club to tell the SFA and UEFA if, after the issue of a licence there are material changes in their circumstances which would affect their eligibility – including the situation at #1 above,
- UEFA awarded Rangers a licence to play in European competition in March 2011,
- In May 2011 Rangers received a tax bill, which they did not contest or appeal or agree a payment plan. The bill (which remains unpaid) was overdue by 30 June 2011,
- UEFA received no notice of this,
- Rangers did not lose their licence and in fact competed in both the Champions’ League and The Europa League in that season.
None of these facts are disputed (as far as is known) by anyone connected to the saga. What is in doubt, because the SFA won’t answer the question, is whether they received a copy of the tax bill and the May letter that accompanied it from Rangers or not.
If they did send it to the SFA, Rangers could reasonably argue that they did their bit and the SFA fell down on the job by failing to notify UEFA of their new unfavourable tax status.
If Rangers did not send it, then they had broken not only UEFA FFP rules but more importantly the trust amongst SFA members that full disclosure is honestly made in a self-certification process. The SFA in not carrying out their monitoring responsibilities properly and using the powers UEFA FFP gave them also broke that trust.
In either case, there is a systematic failure by the SFA to administer the sport effectively; either through a failure of trust, a failure of administration – or both.
Even worse, in the four years that have elapsed since this incident, it seems that nothing has been done to put matters right. The SFA have been very active in refusing to answer questions on the matter, particularly this one;
“How will you prevent it happening again?”
Incredibly, up to now, no measures have been put in place to add rigour to the licensing process. Are they really saying that they think the process was carried out satisfactorily?
No they are saying nothing. Silence and denial, followed by silence and inaction.
So what is the point of this article? Let’s call out the elephant in the room right away – it is unequivocally not to have a go at Rangers. This is no longer really about Rangers at all, but about the SFA’s mal-governance of the game. Besides, clubs affected by this seeming failure on the part of the authorities (in that year Celtic, Dundee United and Hearts and Kilmarnock) are hardly likely to successfully sue a club now in liquidation (although small shareholders might take a different view with regard to the SFA’s conduct).
Nor am I seeking to find some retrospective punishment for the club (as far as I know sanctions are neither available retrospectively, nor useful in this case ) but to be aware that the question above urgently needs to be addressed if the status of football as a sport is to be maintained.
To the extent that this is about what has happened to Rangers, does anyone – no matter what club they owe their allegiance to – seriously consider that TRFC would NOT be in a better situation today had the SFA acted with propriety and applied their rules correctly in 2011/12?
With the kind of money on offer these days for entry into Europe, and the interdependent nature of the game, it seems fairly self-evident that trust is not enough to allow effective regulation, and that incompetent governance where money is the paramount consideration is unacceptable.
The SFA has long enjoyed a misconceived impression of its function as being that of a quasi-legal body, bestowing upon it a status of independence and aloofness from the partisan interest of the clubs. In the main, fans have largely bought into that myth. However the SFA is nothing of the kind.
It is in fact merely a cartel which is allowed to govern itself for its own benefit and is only accountable to the clubs that make up its membership, and not the fans. Check out the last sentences of almost any rule, where discretionary powers awarded to itself effectively render the rule worthless and unenforceable.
Literally, a nihilistic approach to governance
Maybe it is time the SFA scrapped the get out of jail discretionary clauses, and put some robust regulation in place to ensure the financial transparency of all clubs?
Even better, politicians are never slow to tell us of the importance of football to the social fabric of the country – in that case why not follow their own rhetoric, recognise that it cannot be allowed to self regulate in narrow self interest, and legislate to have football governed independently?
If I was a Rangers fan, I’d be thinking that the SFA’s failure to police the UEFA licencing issue helped accelerate the club’s demise – by making it easier to paper over the cracks.
If I was a Celtic, Hearts, Dundee United or Killie fan, well the consequences for them in terms of lost financial and competitive opportunities are fairly obvious.
Conclusion? The clubs can no longer be trusted to run the affairs of the industry themselves.
A new independent, accountable regulatory body (funded by the clubs) is the minimum we need to save the game in this country. It should comprise representatives of the clubs, the fans and other stakeholders – and it should have a holistic remit as its prime directive, whilst ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all clubs.
It can take decisions on the basis of what is good for the game without the baggage of self-interest, and without any west of Scotland institutionalised bias. Of course Scotland isn’t alone in this. Football is a powerful political force across the world, and as developments at FIFA over the past couple of years have demonstrated, it is institutionally corrupt. The clubs can no longer be allowed to run it as they see fit, and we need to begin a campaign which will ultimately convince the pay-at-the-gate fan of the truth of that.
The UEFA licensing issue is only a pebble in the sand of football incompetence and corruption, but it is a microcosm of what ails the game. The good of the sport, and not individual clubs, is paramount. The SFA cannot and will not deliver that.
The case for a new regulatory body is clear, and the status quo is not an option unless the death of the sport is deemed acceptable.
There is little doubt in my mind that unless regime change is effected, in a few decades there will be no regime .
I would actually argue against that John, or at least the same but different.
The three elements all need to be looked at for sure. But they were three separate events albeit with co-mingling factors running throughout.
The IPO really speaks for itself. They were not forced to have an IPO, any more than they were forced to play SPL players against part time postmen in Division 4. That it was possibly predicated on a false premise (no, not the CL one) was the responsibility of the board in making the offering, and the board was RIFC.
The outright purchase of the club again is a stand alone event. As discussed to death on here – actually no, I’ll do the site a favour and re start. As perfectly dissected within hours of it happening on here, whilst the mechanics are more than a little iffy (court case pending) the end result in terms of finances for RFC(IL) was exactly the same.
Then, the asset purchase was another stand alone event, so ‘stand-alone’ in fact that it stood out the proverbial mile that something was indeed ‘up.’ But then that takes us back to the responsibilities of the company in doing the follow on IPO.
But I’m wary of treating the events in one homologous stramash, verging on a boorrach even, not least in that it benefits our ever lazy media and supports the victim mentality that is ever pervading.
The debate re Green’s defence costs shows why the natter needs to sorted out via the courts.
From what I understand Green has raised his case against RIFCplc.
The alleged offenses revolve around a set of events that started before Sevco 5088 or Sevco Scotland/TRFC Ltd came into existence. These include the ‘switcheroo’ and the setting up of ‘the club’.
The IPO then resulted in the setting up of the ‘holding company’ Plc so most or perhaps all of the alleged offences may have occurred prior to the Plc coming into existence
When the defendants left the scene a matter of months after the IPO the Plc and whoever took up board positions thereafter was left with the hand it was dealt.
While I appreciate the arguments that the company or companies need to defend themselves as well as Green you can see why jumping into bed with the defendant would not be the automatic first step for the Plc.
Therefore if the Plc has maintained an insurance policy it is up to the Plc to make the application to the insurers on Green’s behalf. It is not Green who can make such an application. Presumably King, on the advice of his own legal team or that of the insurers, or both has decided not to make such an application.
We have to remember that King will have access to documents and people around at the time Green was operating, so he is not going into this blind.
Given the above and the timeline of the offenses, regardless of what contracts may say (which I am guessing it will be argued as being part of the alleged masterplan, despite possibly being a standard approach for protecting directors and companies) I can see why the current board of the Plc would be resisting such a challenge.
Smugas 14th October 2015 at 10:36 am #
‘… would actually argue against that John, or at least the same but different.
______
Yes: at least three very different but connected elements ( and in my dark suspicions, possibly a fourth ,although no one has [yet] been charged!]. I agree: which I why I commented on the talents of the COPFS that they should, apparently, have been able to run with them together.
That’s why I am mad keen to see exactly what the charges against each of the accused actually are, in detail, because it is not clear to me that the one charge fits all ‘crimes’ or, indeed, all of the accused.
wottpi 14th October 2015 at 11:02 am #
‘…When the defendants ..’
_______
Come, come, wottpi: the term ‘defendant ‘is not used in Scottish criminal cases. Just plain ,old, ‘the accused’ or even, I learned to my surprise not so long ago, ‘ the panel’.
I see Chris Jack is continuing to use the Evening Times as an advertising outlet for Rangers.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/rangers/13845520.Into_the_Ibrox_archives__The_Rangers_fans_who_are_following_in_the_footsteps_of_the_Gallant_Pioneers/
You could transfer that word for word, image for image into an official Rangers magazine and it would not look one bit out of place.
One is forced to wonder if Jack wrote it himself, based on a brief he was given. Or did he simply publish something which was sent to him.
This is exactly the sort of thing this blog tries to address.
Smugas 14th October 2015 at 10:36 am #I would actually argue against that John, or at least the same but different.
The three elements all need to be looked at for sure. But they were three separate events albeit with co-mingling factors running throughout.
——————————————————————————————————
From a PF tactical viewpoint I would agree with that. Merging the three alleged elements into one overall offence, means proving guilt in all three elements or the case falls apart. It may be more beneficial to the PF, and to justice itself, to treat each on it’s own merits, possibly bringing further charges at a later date, or possibly using one of the elements,… perhaps the element they feel most “cast iron” about, to link them all together.
Having said that. They may have decided that the evidence is “cast iron” in all three elements, and a great deal of court time and expense can be saved by going “all in”
I concur with JC that until the charges are known, and to whom they apply, it is impossible to decipher the approach being taken. Even at that there may still be still be a degree of uncertainty.
At the moment the 2011 take-over and 2012 asset sale appear to be being treated in isolation.
Not sure that is incompatible with his case being against RIFC Plc.
The alleged offences involving Green appear to start with the setting up of the new club i.e. Sevco Scotland. If RIFC happens to be the appropriate legal entity (with the liability for his legal costs) now due to subsequent restructuring of group companies then it doesn’t matter that it didn’t exist at the beginning of the sequence of events.
Homunculus 14th October 2015 at 11:55 am #
‘..I see Chris Jack is continuing to use the Evening Times as an advertising outlet for Rangers.’
_________
What kind of newspaper editor outside of North Korea is the like of whoever is the miserable wretch of a hack currently editing the ‘Evening Times’ , that would print a myth in which the Rangers of the past is somehow the same, identical club as Charlie green’s creation?
A very stupid, or frightened one, or one so indifferent to truth that he ought not be allowed anywhere near a newspaper.
Good God Almighty, where do you go with guys too stupid or blind as not to see the distinction between truth and falsehood, reality and myth? Or too choked with partisan feeling as not to bother about making the distinction.
Very bad cess to him , and to his ‘newspaper’
The Evening Times stopped being a newspaper and became a “Rangers” fanzine years ago. Anyway, I always preferred the “Citizen” (was the Saturday football special green?), especially having won their children’s prize crossword competition around 1960. I got an Airfix kit as a prize- and my name in the paper!
neepheid 14th October 2015 at 12:49 pm #
‘.I always preferred the “Citizen” (was the Saturday football special green?’
_______
neepheid, what do mean ‘preferred?’
No need of the past tense if we take the ‘Times” editor’s fantasising approach to historical fact.
The ‘Evening Citizen’ ( green yes, on a Saturday evening) is as alive and well as RFC if I choose to think it is, when I hear ( in my head) the paper -boy’s cry ” Times, News, and Citize.e.e.e.EN.!
Sadly, though, in the real world, the ‘Citizen’ died-just like RFC.
With regards the charges, the way I believe it will go is that each of the individuals will be charged separately and where appropriate with multiple offence.
That way the evidence is led and it is open to the Jury to find each individual guilt, not guilty or not proven with regards each of the separate offences. It is entirely possible that some people will be found guilty of one or more offence but not guilty or not proven in others.
Yes, but sadly I don’t receive regular large cheques from Level 5 PR to assist me in keeping my hopes, dreams and memories alive. And so I’m condemned to live in the real world, where Glasgow’s only remaining evening newspaper is a shockingly poor parody of an Ibrox home match programme from fifty years ago.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/lord-tyre-and-charles-of-normandy/#more-6932
PMGB’s latest blog covering information he has received on the reaction at Ibrox to yesterday’s court hearing. Nothing concrete, but the following line, I think, will be correct, as that is the way smart lawyers work; they leave nothing to chance:
‘Should Charlie win his case then, I am told, that the ‘Engagement Fees’ for his legal team would be due almost immediately.’
He also states that the board were told that the cost of the trial could amount to between £4m and £5.5m.
He does point out that yesterday’s decision to move the hearing to 12th & 13th November allows another pay day to pass, which might be beneficial. To my way of thinking, though, it merely extends the uncertainty, that’s one uncertainty of many!
Back from a trip across the pond where there was no sign of the rugby World Cup, even with us playing USA? Afraid the College football and NFL takes precedence everywhere and you have to find specific bars to watch what ends up being a 0745 “lunchtime in UK” kick-off. Still managed it mind so hats off to the Crystal City Sports Pub in Arlington, VA who opened up at 0745 even though proper opening was at 8.
On the subject of Scottish Football, various discussions over the past weeks have ranged, as on this site, about how NI qualified with 7 players playing in Scotland and how well Iceland’s team, and U21’s, are doing. For anyone interested there is a good article in “Football 365” today which is recommended reading at the end of their “Mediawatch” article.
Johann Sirgudsson on “Lars Lagerback and Iceland’s managerial revolution” tells everything that is right about their set-up and might give the bunker at Hampden an idea of what is wrong with ours. Well worth a read for those interested.
Football 365 also made fun of the Daily Record asking if the guy who asked for a selfie with Lewandowski had caused Scotland’s demise with a response simply saying a crap return of 3 wins out of 9 might be the answer! Enough said. WGS take note please.
Allyjambo 14th October 2015 at 1:43 pm
Agreed.
How can they possibly seek external funding with this (amongst many other things) hanging over them.
I have a PLC, which may not own any of it’s assets, which is around £8m in debt, making losses on a monthly basis, does not have access to the bulk of one of it’s main revenue streams and potentially will need to pay legal fees in the millions, oh and have nothing I can provide by way of security.
I should probably mention that if things don’t go the way they want the customers will leave in their droves and probably threaten you into the bargain.
Any chance of lending me some money, or even better buying a bit of the business.
Worst sales pitch ever.
The media have set their time machine to the early 2000’s for their coverage of David Murray’s triumphant return to profitability. The truth is , as always with Murray , is nowhere close to the reports in the media. The story has relevance as it highlights the relationship Murray had with Bank of Scotland ( subsequently Lloyds) and how that still benefits him today as it damaged and continues to damage Scottish Football.
The profit posted by Murray provides the opportunity to tell the story of how and why this came about. The pre tax profit at Murray Capital was reported as £13.6 million of which £11.8 million came from the sale of an investment in Alexander Dennis
In the financial year 2009 Murray International Holdings made a loss of £224 Million ( Yes Nearly a quarter of a £ Billion). In addition to that Lloyds wrote off £150 million of debt in return for Equity. The value of that Equity to Lloyds ultimately turned out to be £ Zero as MIH is now in liquidation.
During this financial year MIH sold Murray Capital Ventures ( which owned the investment in Alexander Dennis as well as other investments ) for a total of £3 Million. The purchaser was David Murray’s family investment business, the one noted above that made a profit of £11.6 million on the sale of that very same Alexander Dennis sale.
The profit was on an 11% holding in Alexander Dennis. Not in a business that was run by Murray, and was turned around. He was a small minority shareholder , who sat on the investment for 5 years and got a return of 400% . Some might think that return would have been more appropriately due to Lloyds and the UK taxpayer, not to David Murray.
When Lloyds sold this business to Murray did it offer the opportunity to purchase this busienss to the wider market to bid ?
What was the process of deciding that this business was only worth £3 Million ?
How was the £3 Million funded and paid by Murray ?
All of this at exactly the same time as MIH lost £224 Million and Lloyds wrote off £150 Million of MIH debt.
All of this on the way to much bigger losses and ultimate liquidation of MIH and further huge losses to Lloyds as further MIH debt was written off. The last accounts of MIH ( in liquidation ) still shows debt due of £364 million.
So as Lloyds in 2009 started the process of losing over £500 million , could well end up over £600 million , on loans to David Murray, they were busy selling him assets which would return him a 400% return in 5 years, for doing precisely nothing.
Maybe they were encouraged by these quotes by Murray in the 2009 accounts .
” I am confident we are back on track ”
“the worst is behind us ”
” I am confident the measures taken over the last 18 months leave the divisions well placed to weather further storms and capitalise on improvements in market conditions”
As with most of Murray’s statements it all turned out to be complete and utter hogwash. Lloyds ( significantly owned and funded by the UK taxpayer) were well on their way to losing over a half £Billion to David Murray.
Was the investment in Alexander Dennis the only one that Lloyds sold to Murray ?
Of course not.
Were any of these sales publicly marketed and alternative bids sought ?
Not as far as has been disclosed.
All as Murray left his pensioners £22 Million out of pocket and himself nicely topped up with a £6 million EBT.
These are the facts . All UK taxpayers and all Lloyds shareholders have taken a hit because of David Murray. Thats the story the Herald and others should be writing about. This was the environment Scottish clubs had to compete in. As if that wasn’t enough Murray engaged in illegal tax schemes and deceived the League over player contracts .
As someone else memorably said ” we weren’t paranoid enough”
I don’t the extensive thumbs downing of BlueGrass (Greenock Jack) does the blog any favours in terms of credibility.
His posts are no less insightful than those of many others and there has been nothing I’ve read in the last day or so that could possibly offend. It is obvious he is being singled out because he supports the Ibrox club. The scarcity of decent fans of that club on this blog is a serious weakness which many of us recognise. Their reluctance to participate is perhaps understandable given this sort of treatment.
And a specific comment to John Clark in this respect. You thoroughly deserve your near legendary status on the blog, and I personally agree almost invariably with your views on the events of recent years. But I don’t think others should have to agree to certain of your strongly held views before they are allowed to play which is what you seemed to be demanding of BlueGrass. Apologies if I misunderstood you.
Bryce Curdy 14th October 2015 at 4:34 pm #
‘…. I don’t think others should have to agree to certain of your strongly held views before they are allowed to play which is what you seemed to be demanding of BlueGrass. ‘
____
You’re quite right to make the point, and I expressed myself less than clearly or completely..
The point I wanted to emphasise is that a general discussion of football issues-whether it’s about the national team, or league restructuring, or Henry McLeish’s observations and so on- is only meaningful and relevant in so far as Scottish football administration is seen to be both honest and competent in governance. This blog came into being because of a widely-held belief that it has not been, and refuses still to be, in one particular but very large area.
Until that is rectified and acknowledged , good, honest matter-of-opinion football discussion such as other football blogs enjoy, is really on hold, and as it were only put up with as long as it is not aimed at persuading us that we should just forgot the wrongdoing and happily cheer on the Administration and the new club.
Neither Bluegrass nor any other poster can be denied blog space( under the general rules), nor does anyone have to agree with my views.
But I think I’m entitled to ask where other posters are coming from!
In other news…..chief executive Neil Doncaster has now found a new partner to support the League Cup.
Pre-pay energy Utilita’s sponsorship takes effect immediately and will cover this month’s quarter-finals as well as the semis and final of this season’s 70th Scottish League Cup competition.
HirsutePursuit 14th October 2015 at 8:39 am #
Thanks HP, that answered my question,
re the IPO – that to me is the one that should have the alarm bells ringing, while the other ones may murky the waters re assets, really it is still just a squabble over which of the parties is left with a chair on the Sevco/Oldco musical chair extravaganza, the big financial threat is potentially any liability to RIFC over the IPO: £22M worth of risk.
But I’m sure if that happened DCK would just jet in with a newly opened warchest and see them right.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2010/sep/24/john-hughes-hibernian-manager
On Ladbrokes and the completely ridiculous level of criticism levelled at them from the press
In other news I see Celtic have announced the date and time of the 2015 AGM. Not particularly startling news I know, but the media will be invited in. Following their invite to the meeting they will give Celtic an almighty kicking, as they do every year. Meanwhile the club they can’t ask a single question about have yet to announce an AGM, or issue audited accounts. Despite that, still not a single question will be asked.
The media are such a huge part of the problem.
JC 5:26 pm
Your’re a classy act as usual. I see I’ve got 44 TDs, only a few less than the TUs, but not a single comment as to why, just like BlueGrass.
Bryce Curdy 14th October 2015 at 8:53 pm #JC 5:26 pm
__________________________________________________–
Maybe some folk don’t feel the need, or have the confidence, to articulate their disagreement with a comment?
Homunculus
My comment to John was genuine rather than sarcastic as I’ve no doubt he realised. He is a class act, although I thought he was unfair yesterday as he has acknowledged to a degree. If you care to read back my original post i think you’ll realise your error. And I’m not having a go at you. I enjoy your contributions to the blog as much as I enjoy JC’s, honestly.
But to you and jean7brodie, I respectfully disagree. BlueGrass is getting TDd solely because he’s a Sevco fan, and that’s as childish as it is pathetic, and I think this blog should be better than that. He is simply not being treated with the same respect as fans of other clubs and anyone denying this needs a serious dose of reality.
upthehoops 14th October 2015 at 8:27 pm #In other news I see Celtic have announced the date and time of the 2015 AGM. Not particularly startling news I know, but the media will be invited in. Following their invite to the meeting they will give Celtic an almighty kicking, as they do every year.
=============================
I’ve had a look at Celtic’s Annual Report which was also published today. The trading loss and player trading surplus were discussed when the provisional numbers were issued a few weeks ago.
I picked up on the structural changes to their Debt position. As well as paying down the debt by just over £3M the repayment schedule appears to have been brought forward and borrowing limits reduced (from £32.4M to £19.6M), meaning that the club is running a much tighter ship, and should have no loans outstanding by the end of the decade.
The only negatives from the accounts I would highlight (as a non Celtic fan) is the level remuneration and dividends paid to Lawwell and Desmond. I’m certain that if similar sums were paid to execs at another club in Glasgow this blog would be in meltdown about onerous contracts. (I know that Celtic have double the turnover or TRFC and have balanced the books over the longer term, so some may question the comparison)
PL’s overall “package” remains at £999K as it has been since 2012, but includes an increased bonus for last season (with no CL income?).
I’ve raised DD’s dividend from his Preference shares before. These shares have given him a 6% return since he first invested £3M in these shares during McCann’s tenure. No dividends have been paid to ordinary shareholders over the period as far as I am aware, but DD continues to take £185K a year out of the club from that source which has given him a return of more that his initial investment, while his original investment has grown with the capital growth of the company.
I find it ironic that Celtic introduced a conversion facility for this class of shares to ordinary shares a few years ago in order to reduce their liability for ongoing dividend costs, but DD has yet to take up that option.
Bryce Curdy 14th October 2015 at 9:35 pm
“BlueGrass is getting TDd solely because he’s a Sevco fan, and that’s as childish as it is pathetic, and I think this blog should be better than that.”
_______________________________________
I think you are forgetting the baggage that Bluegrass carries as the former poster GreenockJack. I understand the new nomenclature is due to failing to get past the Mods with the original ‘handle’. I am sure the Mods could probably arrange for the poster to claim the history and continue to post as was, if asked. No need for any five way agreement I wouldn’t have thought.Should Bluegrass continue to respect the blog and post in a manner that is reasoned and respectful the TD issue will recede…not that I think it really matters a jot.
Easy Jambo,
Perhaps I am being naïve, but I thought that DD had suspended payment of his 6%. He definitely made a play about doing so in the past.
On the Lawwell thing, that remuneration and bonus definitely raises an eyebrow here, but one must assume that DD feels he is getting his money’s worth from the CEO.
Just not intuitively obvious to me how or why.
Only a week to go before our get together at Perth. We have decided to use the event to make some important announcements, and we will try to make some record of the event if possible.
Homunculus
. It was actually a huge misunderstanding to be fair.
Did you delete your comment or was it the mods? Either way I didn’t call you anything. How could I possibly know how you had thumbsed somebody else’s posts? In any case, despite tonight’s spat I genuinely enjoy what you bring to the blog. I think you’re quite recent and I’m a bit sporadic and haven’t posted much lately hence we’re unfamiliar with each other.
gunnerb
i think I was very vaguely aware there was some history but can’t recall anything first hand. So that makes a bit more sense. But if the mods have allowed him back then that’s good enough for me. I don’t think fans of the Ibrox club should have higher pass marks than fans of other clubs. And I managed to get myself banned once from the blog and you can see how reasonable I am
Big Pink
Despite earlier comments, and despite their limitations I’m not sure I agree about the thumbs. So long as posters use them in a fair and reasonable manner they definitely have a role. Many of us work full time and struggle to read every single post on the blog. Some of the lengthier ones are sometimes the best but not always.
And if you actually think that you should just bin them and then you wouldn’t have to put up with posts like mine tonight!
Big Pink 14th October 2015 at 10:18 pm # Easy Jambo,
Perhaps I am being naïve, but I thought that DD had suspended payment of his 6%. He definitely made a play about doing so in the past.
On the Lawwell thing, that remuneration and bonus definitely raises an eyebrow here, but one must assume that DD feels he is getting his money’s worth from the CEO.
Just not intuitively obvious to me how or why.
=============================
There is no indication from the accounts that DD has waived his dividend, at least that I can find. The total paid in dividends is also consistent year on year, just dropping by the odd £1K as a few take up the conversion option. I guess that any refund of dividends could be accounted for elsewhere is the accounts, but as a director, one would expect that information for DD to be stated explicitly.
I agree re DD’s acceptance of PL’s remuneration.
Since my previous post I also found a reference to DD’s (non) attendance at Board and other Meetings. I was quite surprised as I seem to recall that Barcabhoy was quite upbeat about DD’s active contribution to the operation of the club, in a recent post.
“ATTENDANCE
Eleven formal Board meetings were held during the year. The Audit Committee and Remuneration Committee each met three times. The Nomination Committee met once.
All of the Directors serving during the year attended all Board and Committee meetings which they were eligible to attend, with the exception that Mr Desmond was represented by his alternate at all Board and Audit Committee meetings that he was eligible to attend and consequently did not attend those meetings personally.”
A check on the previous year’s Annual Report shows a similar record of non-attendance
Some interesting chatter on Twitter this evening, predictions of black clouds heading for Ibrox on Friday, and predictably there are Rangers fans who are responding in kind, with denial.
I do not believe that Friday will be a monumental day in the long running saga. It will be good to understand when the case will reach Court, I hope that during the proceedings a trial date will be confirmed.
I must admit, I am surprised that things have reachaed this stage. The Court case will bring much welcome sunlight on events. Sunlight is a good disinfectant.
Whatever happens, I hope this is the start of something good: I hope that Rangers can get a clean break – and this time, this is used to build a clean club, free of past baggage, that plays football, a board that put the interests and development of the club first, a sustainable business model and not least SFA that treat all clubs equally, according to the rules, without fear or favour.
Every time I come on SFM and Rangers Tax Case before, there was always something new to learn, and points of view to digest. It may take some time yet, but hopefully in the not to distant future, talk will increasingly turn from company law, taxation, alleged criminality and focus on the game. However, first due process must run its course in the Courts, and if/where there has been wrong doing, this must be addressed. Let the sun shine.
easyJambo 14th October 2015 at 9:47 pm #
===========
When Fergus McCann sold up, the publicly floated shares were issued as convertable preferred ordinary shares, so there was a fixed preference dividend for the period until the shares converted to ordinary shares back in about 2007, I think. Since then there has been no dividend on the converted shares, but the shares have been tradeable for those interested in selling and reinvesting elsewhere.
The Cat NR1 14th October 2015 at 10:48 pm #
————————————-
There are two classes of Preference shares. Firstly Convertible Preferred Ordinary Shares which as you stated ceased to be eligible for a dividend payment in 2007. However there are also more than 16M Convertible Cumulative Preference Shares which do attract a 6% dividend. DD holds more than 5M of the latter. It was the dividend on those that I was querying.
Check Notes 13 and 22 to the Accounts.
http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/Celtic_plc_Annual_Report_2015.pdf
Bryce Curdy 14th October 2015 at 9:35 pm #
BlueGrass is getting TDd solely because he’s a Sevco fan, and that’s as childish as it is pathetic, …
____________________________________________
You seem very sure of this. I don’t know where you get your evidence. It is very subjective.
Please explain because I don’t know how you come to this conclusion.
Jean,
Bryce is inferring this. Can’t say I disagree altogether, with the caveat that as GJ he did act (although he denies this) as a wind-up merchant and a measure of distrust is in evidence.
Be better if we didn’t get bogged down on Jack’s role or status. No point in falling out because of something so trivial.
Having had a quick look through the CFC PLC accounts there are a couple of things that are of interest when compared to the 2014 NCFC PLC accounts (2015 have not yet been issued). The turnover figure of £51M for 2014-15 for CFC PLC is dwarfed by the NCFC PLC turnover of £94M in a season that ended in relegation. No doubt the 2015 NCFC PLC accounts will show a reduction even though the on-pitch results were better, but turnover should still exceed CFC PLC. Peter Lawwell’s remuneration of circa £1M is less than David McNally’s 2013-14 figure of about £1.2M, even though CFC won two trophies and played in Europe and NCFC got relegated. I would assume that D McN got a promotion bonus in 2014-15 , so he may have got even more.
Such is the disparity between finances in the two neighbouring countries, where a decent sized provincial club in one is turning over far more and paying more to a CE than a regular UCL participant in the other. The same is true of Wales, where no doubt Swansea’s P&L account is more than a match for Celtic’s.
At least ND has gone some way to redressing the balance by garnering another part-sponsorship of the league cup. They managed to increase it to three rounds from two last season, so who knows maybe they will actually match the English Capital One Cup and have the competition website branded from the off next season? And perhaps they could actually let us know when the draw for each round was scheduled in advance rather than the usual shambles?
easyJambo 14th October 2015 at 11:12 pm #The Cat NR1 14th October 2015 at 10:48 pm # ————————————- There are two classes of Preference shares. Firstly Convertible Preferred Ordinary Shares which as you stated ceased to be eligible for a dividend payment in 2007. However there are also more than 16M Convertible Cumulative Preference Shares which do attract a 6% dividend. DD holds more than 5M of the latter. It was the dividend on those that I was querying.
Check Notes 13 and 22 to the Accounts. http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/Celtic_plc_Annual_Report_2015.pdf
====================================
Indeed EJ, you are absolutely right.
DD has holdings of three share classes, with 8M convertible preferred ordinary £1, 32.7M ordinary 1p and 5.1M convertible cumulative preference 60p shown in the directors report disclosure. I assume that it is the latter that attracts the 6% dividend. It would appear that he is not participating in the Scrip/DRIP option and is taking the cash.
I need to look back to remind myself of how the current share stucture arose. Fortunately, the accounts are available back to 2004, and it was an eye opener to see that the turnover for 1993-94 was just under £9M! How times have changed in just 20 years.
Long Time Lurker 14th October 2015 at 10:42 pm #
‘….. The Court case will bring much welcome sunlight on events. ‘
_________
The Court case should ultimately , we hope, clear up what I myself believe are merely the sort of peripheral matters relating to the more or less purely internal matters of the club that CG founded ( serious enough though they be for civic society).
What happened, or what may happen, to TRFC , the new club founded by Charles Green, is, in the broadest sense, neither here nor there!
Of much more fundamental importance is what happened that allowed the cheating SDM to get away for years with serious breaches of SPL and SFA rules when RFC was in his ownership, and when our SMSM hacks were dining sumptuously on succulent lamb washed down with flagons of wine trodden from SDM’s own vine-yard -grown grapes.
What happened was that the wining and dining helped mask the fundamental sports cheating of SDM.
And the very cosy relationship between the SFA President and the club of whose internal financial and other affairs he had intimate knowledge was ignored when that club was found to have been cheating.
Because no questions were asked by those who had eaten of the succulent lamb as to how the hell RFC could attract and keep the players it was playing on the relatively paltry wages that, officially, season after season, and not due to a minor clerical error, were fed to the SPL and SFA as being ‘all payments made to its players’.
Not even when it became apparent , and proven, that in some cases the ‘how’ was related at least in some cases to tax evasion.
So, the trial of men who allegedly fraudulently bought the belongings of an already dead football club, and allegedly then cheated each other, and then allegedly cheated the Stock Market and the general public by a false prospectus in the launching of an IPO…..goes nowhere near to dealing with the fundamental problem:
which is that the owner of the club that died cheated the Sport of Football, and that our Football authorities either connived in that cheating, or subsequently endorsed it by NOT dealing with it at all appropriately by deliberately making sure that their own ‘independent judicial enquiry’ was derailed and sabotaged .
And they refuse to acknowledge that connivance and dodging of the column when it came to doing their bounden duty.
I say again, RFC cheated. Its sporting achievements ‘won’ by that cheating MUST be expunged from the record.
The new TRFC may die.That is neither here nor there.
And if the people who set it up and (allegedly) did so fraudulently go to jail that will be neither here nor there.
But for our Football Governance to be allowed to practise deceit upon us, and get away with trying to rig the sport in favour of the corrupt ‘spiritual essence’ of dead club………..
would be utterly, utterly unacceptable, no matter how many editors of the ‘Evening Times’ or ‘The Herald’ or ‘The Scotsman’ or the vile ‘Daily Record’ argued the contrary.
In my opinion.
upthehoops 14th October 2015 at 8:27 pm #
‘..The media are such a huge part of the problem.’
_________
Yes
Every ‘recognised’ news medium in Scotland has abdicated its responsibilities to report truthfully, and report the whole truth as far as is known to it at any given point, when it comes to dealing with the ‘saga’.
I acknowledge that Mark Daly and BBC Scotland TV did some very brave work, and we owe them thanks for that. And we hope that they were better supported than Jim Spence was by his BBC Radio Scotland boss.
But over the piece, the evidence is there that the succulent lamb brigade, however succulent the lamb may have been, have spewed up nothing but the essentially false bile of at best half-truths, or more commonly, actual untruths.
Is it me being stupid or naive but isn’t there an editor out there in MSM land that can see the tumbling readership figures and thinks”Wait a minute, what we’ve been doing for years is not working, I know lets try telling the truth about rfc and doing some real investigative journalism into the current board, see how that goes?” Seriously, with all the journo’s singing from the same sheet and all the papers dwindling sales, someone has to have at least brought up the subject??
hope you all have a great time in Perth! An annual jaunt to Melbourne should be on the cards soon though
Easy Jambo & Big Pink
======================
Perhaps I too am naive but I also recall a club statement years ago that Dermot Desmond does not take up the dividend on any of his shares. As for whether Lawwell deserves nearly £1M a year I suppose it depends which view you take. He runs the club very well to the remit he is given. It is run in a complete stark contrast to the only other comparable sized club in Scotland. Many fans think there should be a far greater spend on players but aside from that only increasing the debt, it would not be Lawwell’s decision alone to do that. Personally I am more than happy with the present stewardship of Celtic. People should be careful what they wish for. A glance across the River Clyde is evidence of that.
On my original point of the Celtic AGM which sparked this debate I am puzzled why the media are allowed entry at all, unless the club are legally obliged to do so. Don’t get me wrong, the last thing I would want is Celtic reported only via PR issued puff pieces like what happens with Rangers but there has to be a balance. When the inevitable Living Wage Resolution rears its head at the AGM the media in attendance will seize the moment to back the proposers and portray the club in a bad light. Yet when Resolution 12 was raised previously they seized it as a moment to ridicule the proposers. I’m guessing because they don’t want to portray Rangers and the SFA in a bad light. If it is raised again at this year’s AGM, I expect the ridicule will be the same. There is much more than that of course, and I will never forget the headline describing the club as ‘Pauper Bhoys’ when large losses were announced at an AGM in the early 2000’s.
In short, inviting the media to the Celtic AGM is akin to me to asking some of the neighbours over, then finding out the next day they have bad mouthed my entire family to the rest of the street, even though they had no cause to. Yet silence is the only response to Rangers not even mentioning an AGM or producing audited accounts. It is as clear an agenda as you will see.
John Clark 15th October 2015 at 12:24 am #
John, well put – we cannot forget the genesis of the issues.
I think that the proceedings that are in train are the first domino to fall, outwith the FTTT.
HMRC and BDO are not going to go away, we still have the EBT appeal and BDO’s report – both of which could open other doors.
Intrigued by the recent revelation that retro football jerseys were now available from TOFFS for a team named Glasgow, playing in blue and white, I did a little research. The Internet Archive website has a few copies of TOFFS’ Rangers page from the last couple of years, and as recently as August 6th 2014, you could buy no fewer than 6 Rangers jerseys with the RFC crest and a couple more without. However, it looks like the former either sold like hot cakes, or TOFFS may have received a wee letter of some sort, since by January 29th they had all disappeared from the site, and the only remaining Rangers jerseys had no crest at all. And perhaps another wee letter arrived at TOFFS at some point between April 20th and October 9th, because jerseys previously described as Rangers are now named for some mythical Glasgow. They have added a few more crest-free jerseys, though.
For comparison, TOFFS have comprehensive selections of jerseys with crests for both Newcastle United and Sheffield Wednesday, to pick two names completely at random.
You know I thought Rugby Union had itself in a much better state than football, but this rugby world cup has left me in serious doubts about that.
Take for example one Ireland player, caught giving a full blooded punch off the ball to the stomach/ribs of an opponent. The player in question required some medical attention, with the doctor reporting to the citing committee that the player was winded and struggling to catch his breath. The offender was rightly called to the citing committee where he was found guilty. Meanwhile two Scots who made an admittedly clumsy attempt to move an opponent from a ruck which led to them tipping him such that they were cited as performing a “tip tackle”.
The clumsy tackle, which the referee states that he spotted along with the TMO judge and decided that there was nothing to worry about as the player was never in any danger and had his hands in contact with the ground – The committee gave each player a 2 week suspension and increased it by a further week as they need to “rid the game of this danger”. The Irish players common assault led to a 2 week suspension reduced to just 1 because of extenuating circumstances – i.e. he is a nice fella who does charity work etc and Brian O’Driscoll was there to make sure the committee knew that.
What kind of statement does that make – punches are ok as long as you do charity work off the pitch?!
There has been a lot of debate on SFM regarding Directors and Officers insurance cover. We are not privy to (a) what the exact wording of any such policy may be and (b) whether such cover is even in effect.
With so much uncertainty, I thought I would do some investigating and spoke to someone in the sector to get some clarification. The following should be read as just an opinion and bearing in mind the comments made above. SFM posters and any third parties looking in and with an interest in this matter should not rely on the undernoted and are urged to consult with their own legal and insurance representatives!
1. Does cover typically extend to all legal costs incurred by a D or O for both civil and criminal cases?
This is a standard extract from a wording;“reasonable and necessary fees, costs charges and expenses incurred by an insured person with the prior written consent in the investigation, defence, adjustment, settlement or appeal of any claim made or brought against that insured person are covered.”
The key here being the necessary costs and that the insurer is aware of the claim and has provided their written consent ahead of legal defence costs being incurred, or any legal representative being employed. Each insurer will have access to specialist legal departments who will be on hand to provide the advice to both the insured person and the insurer and in the first instance these will be called upon.
2. I assume fines on D&O are excluded (if they are found guilty)
The policy will insure against financial loss including compensation, damages and settlements in respect of any wrongful act that you become legally liable to pay; this may include the defence costs, investigation costs, prosecution costs etc. but as you note the insurance will not cover fines or penalties imposed by law, or taxes.
3. If a D or O is found guilty of, say, criminal fraud is the cover automatically removed e.g. any legal costs incurred by the guilty party are not covered?
The policy will respond to defend up to the point that they are found to be guilty, following a guilty verdict the D or O may be ordered to pay a penalty or fine or may have a custodial sentence. I’ve copied a section from a typical wording below.
Section A ExclusionsThe Insurer shall not be liable under this Policy to make any payment for Financial Loss in connection with any Claim made against any Insured:
Conduct X.1 arising from, based upon, attributable to or as a consequence of: X.1.1 any Insured having gained any profit or advantage to which he, she or it had or has no legal entitlement; or X.1.2 any intentionally dishonest or intentionally fraudulent act or omission committed by an Insured; in the event that either of X.1.1 or X.1.2 is determined or established by: (i) a written admission by the Insured; or (ii) a judgement or other final, non-appealable adjudication or proceeding adverse to the Insured; until such determination, Defence Costs shall be advanced by the Insurer pursuant to Section B of the Policy;
4. Are legal costs during any civil or criminal trials paid out by the insurance company as they arise during the process or at the very end?
Yes, defence costs are paid as and when the defence costs fall due, with some insurers also providing a lump sum at the very beginning. As per Q1. written consent must be obtained before any claim is settled.
5. Or does the employing company themselves fund these costs and make a claim on the insurance once matters have been decided in court?
Answered above.
6. If the D or O is found guilty does the insurance company seek redress from the guilty party?
No, the claim would be paid by the insurance.
I did not ask about whether there would be any excess typically payable by a company effecting such a policy.
It seems to me as a lay person in this area that a defendant enjoying typical cover would benefit from payment of legal expenses before and during any court case regardless of innocence or guilt. If cover is in place then the cost would be to the account of the insurance company.
If cover was not in place or had not been effected with an insurance company for any reason but an undertaking had been given by an employer to an employee that such cover would be provided I suspect that courts would place the burden of any legal costs arising on the employer with similar payment arrangements as noted above i.e. payments being made from the very start of the process.
These could of course be very substantial, this being one reason for taking out such insurance cover!
It also appears that an employee would not normally be expected to repay legal costs even if found guilty.
Happy to be corrected on the above by any legal or insurance minds present on SFM.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
@tayred – there are aspects of Rugby administration that are just as bent as Football. Tier 2 nations hammered, who cares? Irish player treated favourably, situation normal. It’s just a coincidence that all the main governing bodies are based in Dublin. Scotland? Just there to make up the numbers, treat as per Tier 2 nations.
zerotolerance1903 15th October 2015 at 10:39 am
Absolutely, one imagines that a sport with a referee, a TMO, and citation committee with camera angles coming out of their ears might be able to come to sensible conclusions.
What it does prove is that TV evidence isn’t the answer that many think it is – not when you can still have political motivations (and sheer stupidity) present in the decision making process.
That said the use of the TMO judge in the later games has been rather effective, unlike the first few which were absolutely torturous!
redlichtie 15th October 2015 at 10:18 am
Thanks for that RL.
If I may be so bold, A speculative question, and you may not have the answer, but do you know if RIFC board/directors, (If they have insurance)will be insured against this action by CG?
The Cat NR1 15th October 2015 at 12:17 am #easyJambo 14th October 2015 at 11:12 pm #The Cat NR1 14th October 2015 at 10:48 pm # ————————————- There are two classes of Preference shares. Firstly Convertible Preferred Ordinary Shares which as you stated ceased to be eligible for a dividend payment in 2007. However there are also more than 16M Convertible Cumulative Preference Shares which do attract a 6% dividend. DD holds more than 5M of the latter. It was the dividend on those that I was querying. Check Notes 13 and 22 to the Accounts. http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/Celtic_plc_Annual_Report_2015.pdf ==================================== Indeed EJ, you are absolutely right. DD has holdings of three share classes, with 8M convertible preferred ordinary £1, 32.7M ordinary 1p and 5.1M convertible cumulative preference 60p shown in the directors report disclosure. I assume that it is the latter that attracts the 6% dividend. It would appear that he is not participating in the Scrip/DRIP option and is taking the cash. I need to look back to remind myself of how the current share stucture arose. Fortunately, the accounts are available back to 2004, and it was an eye opener to see that the turnover for 1993-94 was just under £9M! How times have changed in just 20 years. ============================
Morning all. Going back to DD’s shareholding, in particular the dividends on the 6% preference shares. It would appear that the holding dates back to the share issue in 1994-95. The prospectus for that issue is available at Companies House. I tried posting a link but it wouldn’t work, so follow the link below and go to filing history and then page 13. The prospectus is logged on 20 December 1994.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC003487
There was a 100 for 1 share split in 1998-99, so the numbers shown prior to that need to be multiplied to get the current equivalent. The offer in 2001-02 was the source of the CPO shares.
I also stumbled on the origin of Pacific Shelf, which often appears in Sevco related internet posting exchanges as some kind of response to those who question the legitamacy of the current operator of the Ibrox Franchise. I was aware of what was happening 20 years ago, but it never struck me as anything to remember at the time. Anyway, when the company incorporated as The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Ltd on 12 April 1897 was renamed and converted to Celtic PLC on 15 December 1994, it left the original name available for reuse. Quite sensibly, in order to prevent an opportunist from forming a new company with the same name for exploitation purposes, the directors purchased an off the shelf company (Pacific Shelf 595 Ltd) as a wholly owned subsidiary and renamed it to the old company name. Of course, the difference between that and the Sevco situation is that there is no group relationship between Sevco Scotland Ltd (now TRFC Ltd) and the former TRFC PLC (now RFC 2012 PLC (IL), so the comparison falls at the first hurdle.
Mods.
Please delete my message at 11.11 currently awaiting moderation.
I’ve edited and reposted at 11.32.
Corrupt official 15th October 2015 at 11:12 am # redlichtie 15th October 2015 at 10:18 am Thanks for that RL. If I may be so bold, A speculative question, and you may not have the answer, but do you know if RIFC board/directors, (If they have insurance)will be insured against this action by CG?————————————————————
CO, firstly I don’t know if RIFC have insurance. It would however seem to me to be both imprudent and/or reckless for them not to have cover, especially when it is believed that they offered this as part of a previous contract of employment.
If we assume that they do have D and O cover I would have thought that the rejection of any claim under the policy from an employee would be under one of two scenarios :
1. at the behest of the RIFC Board for reasons that are unclear/unknown
2. at the behest of the insurance company though obviously again I have no idea on what grounds such a stance would be taken
If the current court case was as a result of a decision by the RIFC Board, doubtless for good reasons, not to agree to cover CG’s legal costs and this stance had been supported by the insurance company, or the insurance company had themselves rejected the claim, I would suspect that the insurance company would pick up the costs of the defending action.
If however the current court case was as a result of a decision by the RIFC Board only, again doubtless for good reasons, but had not been agreed by the insurance company, I would suspect that the insurance company would be reluctant to pick up the related court costs.
I note wording in my previous post that the insurer would require the insured company to obtain “their written consent ahead of legal defence costs being incurred, or any legal representative being employed.”
To date I have seen no mention by RIFC that the rejection of the CG claim was due to their insurers unwillingness to cover CG’s legal costs. That does however remain a possibility.
In the extremely unlikely event that RIFC do not have effective insurance cover then I suspect that CG’s legal costs in both the current case and any subsequent proceedings would have a most unwelcome impact on both short and longer term cashflow.
As I said in my earlier post I am a lay person in this area and any comment I make should not be relied upon in any way.
Scottish Football needs sponsorship from areas of Scottish commerce and industry currently on the up – perhaps legal practices should now be targeted by ND!
I note that TRFCG has lodged an MR01 at Companies House. It’s not viewable yet but I wonder what the security is held over.
redlichtie 15th October 2015 at 10:18 am
RL, an excellent, well researched and informative post. I would suggest that only Mark Daly of the SMSM has shown the ability. and. more importantly, the willingness, to make such an effort to provide the public with informed writing, particularly where the end result is not what the bears would like to read.
I would imagine that insurance cover of this type will mirror the requirements of CG’s contract where it covers legal expenses cover, as he’d almost certainly look very deeply into this sort of thing – because it was in his best interest to do so. Also, insurance companies would not pay out a penny before they are required to do so; therefor, if they have to pay out, immediately and periodically, so will whoever is responsible for covering an accused’s legal team’s costs.
stevo 15th October 2015 at 9:55 am #Intrigued by the recent revelation that retro football jerseys were now available from TOFFS for a team named Glasgow, playing in blue and white, I did a little research. The Internet Archive website has a few copies of TOFFS’ Rangers page from the last couple of years, and as recently as August 6th 2014, you could buy no fewer than 6 Rangers jerseys with the RFC crest and a couple more without. However, it looks like the former either sold like hot cakes, or TOFFS may have received a wee letter of some sort, since by January 29th they had all disappeared from the site, and the only remaining Rangers jerseys had no crest at all. And perhaps another wee letter arrived at TOFFS at some point between April 20th and October 9th, because jerseys previously described as Rangers are now named for some mythical Glasgow. They have added a few more crest-free jerseys, though. For comparison, TOFFS have comprehensive selections of jerseys with crests for both Newcastle United and Sheffield Wednesday, to pick two names completely at random.
====================================
Is Glasgow FC the mythical “West of Scotland”, whose fans were reported in the DR as being involved in inappropriate behaviour at a game at Easter Road earlier this year?
redlichtie 15th October 2015 at 12:15 pm
Thanks again RL. I came across this, and it would appear not.
http://www.amwins.com/Pages/Client%20Advisories/insured-v-insured-exclusion-DO.aspx
redlichtie 15th October 2015 at 12:15 pm
This post continues to give opinion worth paying attention to because it’s coming as a result of good research.
I am wondering, though, if the insurance angle might be what gives the board cause to contest CG’s claim. I wonder if he, himself, omitted to arrange D&O insurance cover, and, through his negligence, has left the club exposed, and the board are hoping the judge will sympathise with them and set the provision in Green’s contract aside. Pure speculation, of course, but, at the very least, Green would have been negligent in not ensuring it was in place during his tenure, and, if Lord Tyre considers it was his responsibility to arrange it, he might hold that he cannot now expect the club to carry the can (though put in more judge-like words
).
Omitted to?
Or held within a long list of items entitled “Austerity measures – stuff to be cut” into which insurance was conveniently inserted and signed off by a naff, sorry, naïve board.
Just thinking aloud.
redlichtie 15th October 2015 at 10:18 am
“There has been a lot of debate on SFM regarding Directors and Officers insurance cover. We are not privy to (a) what the exact wording of any such policy may be and (b) whether such cover is even in effect”.
————————————————-
a)Absolutely, could be specially negotiated. (See IOD link below)
b)This is the key, my opinion (and it is only an opinion) is that there is no Insurance cover.
Lastly
“The following should be read as just an opinion .……consult with their own legal and insurance representatives”
Best caveat I have seen!
For D & O:-
https://www.abi.org.uk/Insurance-and-savings/Products/Business-insurance/Liability-insurance/Directors-and-officers-liability-insurance
Association Of British Insurers:
“If directors and officers do not have insurance, they face a greater risk of not being able to defend themselves against:
disqualification from holding the position of director
civil proceedings which can lead to hefty legal costs and awards for damages
criminal prosecution which can lead to fines and possible imprisonment”
http://www.iod.com/your-venues-and-benefits/specially-negotiated-products-and-services/iod-directors-liability-insurances
Insitute Of Directors
EDIT: Smugas 15th October 2015 at 12:54 pm #
Yes
Supporters Bus News:
The Litigation Loyal Supporters Association bus will be leaving Edmiston Drive for the away match in Edinburgh on 16th October 2015 at 8.00am.
Full Regalia to be worn.
All non-members welcome. ( Nah..Just Kidding.)
Best behaviour. (Nah…Just…….
Allyjambo 15th October 2015 at 12:39 pm
“I am wondering, though, if the insurance angle might be what gives the board cause to contest CG’s claim. I wonder if he, himself, omitted to arrange D&O insurance cover,”
——————————————————————————————————
I wouldn’t think so Ally. Is it your duty to complain about your wages not being in the bank, before you go to the bank and discover it?
It would appear that it is whoever may be in charge at the time of the claim who bears the responsibility of arranging cover, and not necessarily those in place at the time of the alleged offence being committed.
———————————–
“If an incident in 1991 leads to a claim in 1992, which policy will pay?
1991 Policy: Absent special arrangements, the 1991 policy does not apply because the claim was not filed during the policy year. Coverage may depend on whether the policyholder provided sufficient notice of the potential claim during 1991 or purchased an extended reporting period (tail) for the policy”.
http://www.hindmansanchez.com/resources/article/anatomy-do-policy/
Smugas 15th October 2015 at 12:54 pm # Omitted to? Or held within a long list of items entitled “Austerity measures – stuff to be cut” into which insurance was conveniently inserted and signed off by a naff, sorry, naïve board.
Just thinking aloud.
___________________
My own opinion is that Green would have ensured the appropriate insurance was in place, it was, after all, other people’s money he was spending. But if he didn’t, perhaps through negligence (he is, after all, a spiv rather than a consummate businessman), he may have given the current board a small hope of having this clause in his contract set aside. On the other hand…It is, I suspect, the kind of thing that a desperate company might set aside in a cost cutting exercise, or maybe just neglect to ensure the premiums are paid when money’s tight.
From the lack of assurances that it is in place, and the way the MSM fail to mention it (has any hack even raised the possibility TRFC have nothing to worry about because they would be insured? Level5 not doing their job properly?), it’s a reasonable assumption they don’t have D&O insurance cover. What’s more, if they did have such cover, surely it would be the insurers that would be fighting against liability).
Allyjambo 15th October 2015 at 1:24 pm #
Agree.
We know that Green’s claim for payment of his legal fees has been refused by Kingco. That is why Green has had to go to court to try to enforce what he presumably sees as his contractual right to a fully funded legal defence.
There are two possibilities.
1) There is no insurance in force. In this case I can fully understand why King would fight this tooth and nail. The potential cost is fatal to his loss making entity. So if Green wins, surely the Sevco project is finished.
2) There is insurance in place. So why would King intervene? Why not let Green have a top defence team, paid for by the insurer? It costs King’s company nothing (the premiums are all paid up already, presumably) so why resist his claim?
Is King trying to hang Green out to dry? In other words, does he want Green found guilty, and (presumably) the asset sale reversed? Is it King’s hope (aim?) to bring down the current version of “Rangers” and start all over again? If there is insurance is in place, and King is blocking it, then it’s difficult to come to any other conclusion..
Can anyone see a positive outcome for TRFC? I can’t.
Given:
(a) the professional background of most of the current sevconian board/senior mngmt;
(b) the background of the rest of the current sevconian board/senior mngmt;
(c) the current and ongoing state of play and finances in sevconia;
I would be utterly amazed and dumbfounded if director and key employee liability insurance was not in place and fully paid up. It’d be the first thing any director/key employee would look for before signing on the dotted line.
To have to pay £85m for a get-out-of-jail-free card is one thing, but nobody would want to have to pay legal costs on top.
I’m pretty certain the sevconian defence will be based on the notion that a fraud has been perpetrated upon the company and it would be unfair for the company to then be forced to pay costs of alleged fraudster (if chuckles wins, sevco premiums would rocket). Legally, I doubt that holds much water but sevco have no choice but to try in the vain? hope of a reverse-brysonian decision by a sympathetic? court.
Corrupt official 15th October 2015 at 1:23 pm # Allyjambo 15th October 2015 at 12:39 pm“I am wondering, though, if the insurance angle might be what gives the board cause to contest CG’s claim. I wonder if he, himself, omitted to arrange D&O insurance cover,” —————————————————————————————————— I wouldn’t think so Ally. Is it your duty to complain about your wages not being in the bank, before you go to the bank and discover it? It would appear that it is whoever may be in charge at the time of the claim who bears the responsibility of arranging cover, and not necessarily those in place at the time of the alleged offence being committed. ———————————– “If an incident in 1991 leads to a claim in 1992, which policy will pay? 1991 Policy: Absent special arrangements, the 1991 policy does not apply because the claim was not filed during the policy year. Coverage may depend on whether the policyholder provided sufficient notice of the potential claim during 1991 or purchased an extended reporting period (tail) for the policy”.
http://www.hindmansanchez.com/resources/article/anatomy-do-policy/
_________________________________
CO, I’m basing my very speculative musings on the possibility that there never was any D&O insurance in place, and that CG might be held responsible for that omission (does it not state in his contract that the company is responsible for ensuring insurance is in place? Maybe not, though). The glimmer of hope might be that the board hope the judge might find against someone who’s own negligence has led to the company being unable to meet it’s obligation to him personally. There is also the possibility, however unlikely, that a policy was cancelled/allowed to lapse under Green’s stewardship.
Allyjambo 15th October 2015 at 2:21 pm
If I may draw your attention to this part.
“Coverage may depend on whether the policyholder provided sufficient notice of the potential claim during 1991 or purchased an extended reporting period (tail) for the policy”
CG is claiming there was a “tail” on the policy and extended the coverage to ? was it 6 years?
As this would be an additional purchase requirement, it seems unlikely that he is floundering in the dark, and has knowledge of it’s existence.
I would also emphasise having read a little, how tailor made these policies are, and this is also speculation. However having said that, , considering the basket case they were taking control of, it would be negligent in the extreme for the current directors not to have cover, as they must have at least been suspicious of previous directors actions. and aware that this sort of event a strong possibility.
alzipratu 15th October 2015 at 2:17 pm
What you write makes perfect sense, but not everything TRFC have done during their short lifespan has made sense (from the outside). I think. too, that many of the players around the boardroom are blinded by their emotions and concentrate too hard on the major problems (of which there are many) and miss the less obvious trip wires dotted throughout this creation of spivs!
As neepheid questioned in his last post:
“2) There is insurance in place. So why would King intervene? Why not let Green have a top defence team, paid for by the insurer? It costs King’s company nothing (the premiums are all paid up already, presumably) so why resist his claim?”
I wonder, if there was a D&O policy under Green, but it has been allowed to lapse, and Green as a result can’t afford his ‘dream team’ defence because TRFC are unable to meet the costs/go into administration, if he will have a claim against the current individual board members, or the previous board members who allowed it to lapse?
It would surely be a hell of a bold play (by Green if no-one else) for King to use Green as the excuse to crash the bus (which in itself I could absolutely understand), since, fully funded dream team lawyers or not, it would potentially expose Green himself to almost certain jail time purely for the betterment of RFC#3 fortunes going forwards.
What was it Ahmad said about the Scottish Legal System again?
Would you place your trust and chateaux in their hands for apparently small reward (small that is relative to what you are already receiving specifically by not throwing yourself in front of said bus).
neepheid 15th October 2015 at 2:08 pm and others.
As I posted yesterday, if an insurance policy is in place then it will be up to the policy holder -RIFC plc – to make the claim, fill in the application forms etc. No insurance company is going to initiate the process!! Green is outwith the RIFC umbrella now and therefore cannot initiate the process himself other than through the courts.
IMHO that is why Green has raised the case against RIFC.
The reasons for RIFC not making an application on Green’s behalf are unknown at this time but my guess is that it will be based on RIFC legal advice or feedback from the insurers saying they, on looking at the circumstances, would not entertain such a claim or, indeed, both.
Nobody is going to want to pay out large sums of cash to the lawyers if they don’t have to and there is a way out.
While, with an insurance policy, the payout for Green’s costs would be with other’s money RIFC will not want such a claim to go ahead as it has the potential to increase premiums, make them more of a liability in the future etc etc. (Remember, their current Chairman is a convicted tax dodger)
I see the refusal of RIFC to take things forward on Green’s behalf wholly acceptable given the circumstances.
If no insurance policy is in place, for whatever reason, then they could find themselves on a sticky wicket.
That being said, while, a contract is a contract, at the same time there are many extenuating circumstances in this case that makes this far from the norm of a standard insurance application for say some Director being pursuer by a customer for something like faulty goods /services or pocketing the company pension monies.
I think this one is pretty much 50/50 and will not be surprised if Green is told to ‘do one’ after the two days in court.
Allyjambo 15th October 2015 at 2:48 pm #
Ah, the sevconian defence! “Nothing is as it truly seems.”
You may very well be correct.
On another tack, something troubling me: if the SFA licence/membership thingy is held by sevco ltd, could sevco international holding company not “ahem” sell the subsidiary to, I dunno, an ursine partnership in settlement of debts/liabilities or some such? Chuckles’ claim with sevco international sails merrily along thereafter (possibly putting said company into liquidation) leaving sevco ltd to sally forth under “new” owners quite separate and distinct from any parent company? Isn’t this what Portsmouth and Leicester did several times and Southamoton tried to do too late?
alzipratu 15th October 2015 at 3:38 pm #Allyjambo 15th October 2015 at 2:48 pm #
Ah, the sevconian defence! “Nothing is as it truly seems.” You may very well be correct.
On another tack, something troubling me: if the SFA licence/membership thingy is held by sevco ltd, could sevco international holding company not “ahem” sell the subsidiary to, I dunno, an ursine partnership in settlement of debts/liabilities or some such? Chuckles’ claim with sevco international sails merrily along thereafter (possibly putting said company into liquidation) leaving sevco ltd to sally forth under “new” owners quite separate and distinct from any parent company? Isn’t this what Portsmouth and Leicester did several times and Southampton tried to do too late?
==========================
I’m sure MA would have something to say about that, to start with.
Both the Leicester and Southampton situations were related to their new grounds, whereas Pompey’s was more down to their decrepit old ground.
wottpi 15th October 2015 at 3:09 pm
wottpi, I refreshed the page and this line of yours was the first I caught,
(Remember, their current Chairman is a convicted tax dodger)
It made me think. Would a convicted felon be eligible for insurance?
Yes, but is this not the “transfer under conditions of solvency” that was discussed previously.
For TRFC to be considered solvent, particularly where ownership of assets is under question, requires RIFC, Ashley and probably at least Taylor to formally write off their debts.
Why would they do that?
And, of course, lets not forget (to save JC typing it
) that this is precisely why the solvency rule was written, to stop a club (don’t start), a club by virtue of it holding a membership, using company debt to progress, then dumping said company and starting again.
Or, once again, am I that cream filled confectionary in the window?