The Elephant in the Room

ByGuest Blogger

The Elephant in the Room

A Guest blog by @heavidor:       

Given The Takeover Panel’s success in procuring a Court of Session order to compel Dave King to make an offer for all Rangers International Football Club Plc shares not owned by the Concert Party it would be impossible for King to remain a director unless he complies with that Order.

The co-option of Barry Scott to the board and the elevation of Alistair Johnston as a person with significant control could be construed as repositioning, however it will be whether King makes an offer of 20 pence per share to all the shareholders not included in the Concert Party or not that will determine what happens next and we shall know later this month.

(King resigning) is the correct thing to do and should have already occurred. Instead, Rangers financial reputation has been dragged through the mud by association.

Irrespective of whether King complies with the Court Order or not this story is far from over, and it will continue to hamper Rangers’ prospects until it is conclusively resolved. A King resignation as a director of RIFC would reduce the prospect of contaminating the club, its directors and advisors from the full effect of cold shouldering should he decline to make an offer.

That would mean that King, as distinct from RIFC, had financial pariah status and not the club. That is the correct thing to do and should have already occurred but, instead, Rangers’ financial reputation has been dragged through the mud by association with King.

What should not be underestimated is the reality of cold-shouldering, not for just the offending party, but for those involved in business with the offending party. The consequences are dire for the individual or organisation who falls foul of the rules, making it impossible to carry out normal business activities within the sphere of influence of The Panel, and the same consequences face those who shelter the cold shouldered.

It should be appreciated that there are members of the RIFC that are members of regulated financial professions who would be further prejudiced through association with a cold shouldered non-resident King.

Perhaps unfortunately for a large slug of the mainstream media and football authorities, financial pariah status pursuant to cold shouldering in the UK coming on top of criminal convictions in SA would be impossible to spin in any positive way or to maintain continued fit and proper status. I mean, we could have the SFA cold shouldered, couldn’t we? All said though, the cognitively dissonant will carry on regardless.

If King does the right thing by resigning from the board, it is still important to appreciate that the ‘4 Bear’ Concert Party as determined by The Panel will continue to exist irrespective of how Kings deals with the instruction to make an offer for the shares. This is the elephant in the room that remains.

The Concert Party via their shares and loans will retain the same level of control they currently have, and therefore remain compelled to abide by The Panel’s rules.

King’s resignation would not remove that impediment.

It doesn’t end there. By challenging the authority and insulting the intelligence of The Panel and the Court, King has ensured all large share transactions in RIFC will be scrutinised and questioned and could additionally determine, for example, that the Concert Party is increased to include Club 1872 and Barry Scott on the basis they are working in concert with King and/or other concert party members.

There are some who think that The Panel has been slow to respond and impose sanctions and that they are all bark and no bite. It would be wrong to think so. The reality is that King has moved the whole dispute into uncharted territory. There has been no precedent for such continued brazen and naïve flouting of Panel rules. Accordingly, The Panel has chosen to move at its own pace, dotting the ‘i’s and crossing the ‘t’s and I suggest they’re being methodical rather than indecisive in dealing with the estimable Mr King.

The true value of RIFC shares was a key point in the recent court case with all kinds of claims being made. Some think that the lack of significant arm’s-length trades makes it impossible to arrive at a correct price, and others say that the price paid to Mike Ashley in recent trades is the benchmark. In my opinion, neither is correct. Current and prospective shareholders have the financial figures in the accounts to work with, and can determine the real worth from there. On that basis it is clear to me the shares are not worth anything like the last alleged trading price on Jenkins. Rather it seems that the shares only have nominal value given the business has never declared a profit, continues to lose money and is reliant upon ongoing shareholder loans to stay in business.

Any subsequent share issue – even with King gone – could muddy the waters further; The Concert Party members may expose themselves to another Panel instruction to make another offer should any of its members acquire more shares without coming to an arrangement with The Panel beforehand.

To illustrate such an arrangement, Dermot Desmond got Panel permission to increase his shareholding above 29.9% the last time Celtic had a share issue. This is preferable to trying to hoodwink the financial authorities with tall tales.

It should be clear to all followers of RIFC’s financial travails that the status quo is unsustainable. So, the question is ‘what’s next’? The chairman’s statement that accompanied the annual accounts once more talked about loan to equity conversion without reference to the impact of the existence of a Concert Party amongst the RIFC Board of directors and providers of loans. This is remarkable any such conversion cannot take place without the permission of The Panel and/or without dragging the other directors and lenders in the quagmire with another possible offer for the shares not owned by the Concert Party.

.. the shares only have nominal value given the business has never declared a profit, continues to lose money and is reliant upon ongoing shareholder loans to stay in business

So, what should happen and what is required for RIFC to rid itself of this terrible yoke? The answers are pretty obvious; King should make an offer of 20 pence per share to all those shareholders not included in the Concert Party. He has said the shares are worth more than that and that no one would accept. If he’s correct he has nothing to worry about and he would create a clear path forward for Rangers. He would also resolve the dispute with The Panel, creating the conditions for a debt to equity conversion.

So, why might that not happen? Because if the shares are worth 27 pence as the directors have suggested that means the loan to equity conversion would have to be at the same price and, of course, if the shares not worth anything like that there would be a rush to accept 27 pence and the ball would be on the slates, so to speak.

It appears to me the board is stuck between a rock and a hard place, that King will resign, and that there will be no offer.

If this happens the position would be precarious. The current board doesn’t have the credibility, money or experience to take Rangers forward. Being a true blue should not be the defining characteristic of what’s required to make Rangers competitive but it appears to be the preferred qualification of most of their customers.

I believe Rangers need a need owner with a controlling shareholding and deep pockets to sort out this mess, and I have reason to believe this view is shared by some of those with influence.

That is not to say that a solution is imminent, but the reality check is at least a start.

About the author

Guest Blogger author

Guest Bloggers are drawn from SFM members and beyond. The opinions in Guest Blogs are not necessarily shared or endorsed by SFM. If you would like to submit a guest blog to SFM, let us know.

1,315 Comments so far

Big PinkPosted on10:14 am - Jan 18, 2018


It’s based on the administration of a fictitious football club and includes all kinds of crazy characters.

Never ….

View Comment

redetinPosted on10:39 am - Jan 18, 2018


fan of footballJanuary 17, 2018 at 19:22
Vincent Lunny on sportsound tonight  Waxing lyrical about how decisions are made with mitigating circumstances and the public don.t always get to hear the whole story .
_________________________________________
A very important point, fof.

As a minimum, the minutes of meetings of SFA, and other bodies with any governance role, should be available to the public (as supporters, fans, customer, stakeholders).

Commercial discussions and minutes could be kept confidential, but decisions affecting the game and its management should be completely transparent.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on10:58 am - Jan 18, 2018


EASYJAMBOJANUARY 18, 2018 at 09:09
    “Today’s proceedings at the CoS with David Whitehouse is only against Police Scotland, who are claiming immunity from prosecution.  
There is another hearing scheduled for May in respect of his action against the Crown”
   ———————————————————————————-
    Immunity from prosecution?…….That sounds like a crazy war-time or national defence get out EJ……..Can you elaborate on their grounds for claiming such?
     Surely it’s not “Civil unrest”?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:24 am - Jan 18, 2018


Big PinkJanuary 18, 2018 at 10:14

It’s based on the administration of a fictitious football club and includes all kinds of crazy characters.
Never ….

Apparently the warm up is Neil Patey and his hilarious monologue “Sound Financial Planning and Sustainability” 

View Comment

nawlitePosted on12:49 pm - Jan 18, 2018


Thanks BobCobb, that’s really insightful and not something I was aware of, but now that you mention it, very obvious that TB is MIA.
It just adds to my wondering if there is some sort of decree re current players too. Can you imagine the radio/TV guys trying to work out if it’s safe to interview X or Y before a match against TRFC or even the after-match chat? “Right, Griffiths got a hat trick and MoM; can you interview Boyatta instead, please?”
I also genuinely wonder to myself if there is some SFA threat of misconduct charges if ‘new club’ is brought up in interview, but no one here is picking up on my thought, so I guess it’s just me.

View Comment

bluPosted on1:05 pm - Jan 18, 2018


NAWLITEJANUARY 18, 2018 at 12:49
Nawlite,
This isn’t to excuse the lack of public comment by Scottish football players, but the professional game’s a small and insular business and people have short careers. All those in the game have a view on the RFC farrago and most aren’t prepared to go public with it because they’ll get grief. An exception was Leigh Griffith’s bite back at Glasgow airport to the low-life who enjoyed shouting out the paedo line. Leigh is one of those that engages on social media and quick witted (hot-headed?) enough to hit back and deal with the consequences later. He’s one of the most abused footballers so may feel that he can’t get any more abuse than he already does, or may just not care. Others maybe just don’t fancy it. 
As I said previously though, it’s the people who run the clubs and the game who are responsible and who have failed.

View Comment

bect67Posted on1:30 pm - Jan 18, 2018


There has been much comment on here about the , let’s say, unprofessional way (derisory offers, destabilising/unsettling tactics, SMSM puff pieces etc)in which Sevco approach potential transfer targets. The following is extracted from  Video Celts and is by Andy Holt (Accrington Stanley Chairman) in relation to underhand dealings re Matt Crooks and Dean Windass:-
“It’s a bit like asking permission off someone to s— his wife when he knows you’re already at it”
There’s times when political correctedness and polite responses to Sevco’s approach are “oot the windae”! As they say, this guy “hisnae missed them and hit the wa'”
You won’t read his quote in our media.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on2:30 pm - Jan 18, 2018


Half time report from the Court of Session.

Today’s hearing is only about David Whitehouse’s claim that he was unlawfully arrested and detained by Police Scotland. 

Whitehouse, Clark and Grier were all in attendance.

Lord Malcolm (Colin Campbell) started proceedings by asking if anyone had any objections to him hearing the case as he (and his son) had had previous involvement with Rangers cases.  I’ve no idea what his son does for a living.

The proceedings were pretty dull until the last few minutes before lunch.

DW was represented by Heriot Currie QC, who also defended him during the preliminary hearings for the criminal fraud case.

There were two main arguments presented by Mr Currie:
1)  That the arrest and detention was unlawful because the arresting officer did not have personal knowledge of the suspected criminal activities carried out by DW at the time of his arrest.
2) That Police Scotland’s averments (allegations), apparently based on three statements given by DW to the Police, were not backed up by the actual statements themselves. i.e. there was no evidence in them to support the charges.

Re 1). I was unaware of this, but apparently an arresting officer must have “personal” knowledge or suspicions that the person to be arrested has committed or is in the process of committing a crime.  Mr Currie presented a number of authorities, including one by Lord Malcolm himself, that supported that interpretation of the law, e.g. it’s not enough for a sergeant to tell his constable to go and pull someone in because the sergeant thinks a crime has been committed.  The constable has to be made aware of the suspicions that the person had committed a crime and make up his own mind that there are sufficient grounds for arrest. In most “big” cases the arresting officer will come from the investigating team, therefore would have knowledge of the reasons and justification for an arrest.

Re 2) The Police’s case appears to be based on evidence taken from the three statements made by DW in June, September and October 2012, which led to the conspiracy and fraud charges being made against him.  Mr Currie argued that the charges did not reflect what was said in the statements, e.g. a claim that DW had prior knowledge of the Ticketus arrangements.  He also argued that the police were wrong to equate what MCR or D&P knew as opposed to DW personally. 

Maria Maguire, QC for Police Scotland interjected shortly before lunch to say that it was necessary to show malicious intent by the police in addition to what Mr Currie had presented.  That seemed to take Mr Currie by surprise, as he said he had no advance notice that such an argument would be presented and there were no authorities offered for such an argument either. Lord Malcolm offered an adjournment to allow this to happen, but Mr Currie said that he would wait to see what Ms Maguire came up with first.

Mr Currie ended the pre lunch session by asking Lord Malcolm to read the three statements in full and to decide for himself if what DW said was reflected by the charges laid against him.

If Mr Currie is correct then I’d suggest that the “malice” element would be self evident, e.g. if there is no denial of Ticketus knowledge in DW’s statements, then how could be be charged with such a claim supposedly based on the statements, unless it was malicious.

Sadly I’m unavailable for today’s second half, so we will have to rely on JC for the full time report.

BTW – David Grier has a similar action against Police Scotland at Glasgow Sheriff Court tomorrow. 

View Comment

bobcobbPosted on3:20 pm - Jan 18, 2018


Thanks EJ – your efforts are very much appreciated.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:10 pm - Jan 18, 2018


BECT67

JANUARY 18, 2018 at 13:30

…Andy Holt (Accrington Stanley Chairman) in relation to underhand dealings re Matt Crooks and Dean Windass…

You won’t read his quote in our media.
————————————-

It’s certainly in the online Scotsman:

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/accrington-stanley-chairman-blasts-underhand-rangers-transfer-tactics-1-4664868

I haven’t looked at any other blatts to see if they’ve run with the story.

View Comment

BallyargusPosted on5:24 pm - Jan 18, 2018


BOBCOBBJANUARY 18, 2018 at 09:40
46
2 Rate This
nawliteJanuary 17, 2018 at 14:35 “We all know that none of them will ever be invited by radio, TV or the print media to state their beliefs in the way that the pro-same club guys regularly are.” Tom Boyd is the best example of this. Over 550 appearances in top flight Scottish League football. Scottish Cup winning captain of Motherwell and one of their greatest ever players. League, Scottish and League Cup winning captain of Celtic. Winner of three Premier Leagues, three Scottish Cups and three League Cups in his career. Former Scotland captain and hall of fame member with 72 caps for his country (sixth most capped Scotland player of all time) including appearances at three major Championship finals. In every sense of the word, Tom Boyd is a legend of the Scottish game.I know from personal experience that he is also a complete gentleman and extremely modest. He is also capable of offering insightful and knowledgeable analysis on our game (and has done so for Celtic TV). Tom is an obvious candidate for TV or Radio punditry / co-commentary. Yet he doesn’t get any gigs and is never asked for his opinion. Why?Because Tom has always maintained in public and when asked by the media that this version of “Rangers” are a new club. Because he publicly criticized SFA Chairman Alan McRae when he said Scottish football “needed a strong Rangers.” Because he blamed Rangers woes squarely where the blame lies – with Rangers themselves. In short, because on the few occassions Tom was asked for his opinion, he told the inescapable truth. As a result, they don’t ask him any more.The media in this country are often portrayed as incompetent. I guess that all depends on what one thinks they are trying to achieve. If they are trying to be objective and truthful then they are indeed incompetent. However, if their aim is to whitewash Scotland’s greatest sporting scandal from history, then one must conclude that they are in fact very good at what they do.
The other one that comes to mind is Tosh McKinlay. He had the “Celtic” column on the Evening Times on a Friday as DFDJ had the Rangers* one. By the same token as above he didn’t last long, only Celtic ex players that are prepared to take a soft line with Sevco and all associated with the big lie are welcome. Some might even call them “Uncle Toms”. As one of these said to my friend, “Well it’s all about the money, if you want to keep your job you’ve got to toe the line”.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:33 pm - Jan 18, 2018


In the style of Phil Mac, mine from earlier.
Given today’s confirmation from Tynecastle I guess I won’t be getting a Sportsound gig either. 07

Hearts have gone six games without losing a goal against everyone around us in the table bar T’Rangers.
Signing a solid and consistent left back may be on folks minds as it has been seen as a long term issue but maybe its not the problem people think it is in terms of holding the fort domestically.Midfield dynamism and more consent goal scoring is probably where (McPhee’s) stats say the squad needs strengthening.
Therefore taking a punt at Naismith may not be as daft as it seems if Levein is happy that the left back slot can be rotated around those who have played there and the new loan lad from Man Utd.IMHO it is the above simple analysis (along with avoiding all the walking away from the Old Club stuff, the Glasgow media goldfish bowl etc etc) that makes an approach to Naismith a goer for Hearts and, as you say, just as relevant for others who may see second or third as being achievable, if the player does indeed want to settle back down in Scotland.
Not sure how his legs are given the lack of playing time this year but the likes of ex Championship old boys like Whittaker and Berra show that they can still do a decent job in the SPFL in the right set up. Even Kris Boyd appears to have re-awoken given the right coaching so maybe Naismith – Kilmarnock is as good a shout as any.
An element of cash will however no doubt be king at the end of the day despite what the papers say.

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on5:37 pm - Jan 18, 2018


An excerpt from the BBC’s Govan correspondent reporting on today’s court case regarding David Whitehouse.

The club entered liquidation and was subsequently sold to a consortium led by Charles Green.

Where do you even begin with the moron who wrote such contradictory excrement?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-42734492

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on5:56 pm - Jan 18, 2018


JOHN CLARKJANUARY 17, 2018 at 22:41
I agree with you regards the CO role and it makes sense for him to take a backward step when he has fulfilled his remit .
However because of what you state regards the conduct of the SFA and others during the cheating yrs up till now ,I am very uneasy about Lunny’s appearance on BBC radio tonight .
Seemed to me he was softening any listeners up by saying whatever the outcome of the inquiry , it’s a few of 78 faceless panel volunteers who make the decision ,so don’t blame TM or the SFA .
Maybe it’s my paranoia but I remember that was a standard dismissal (put down)from the MSM to supporters when awkward questions were asked .They don’t say it now because as we and THEY all know ,we weren’t paranoid enough .
He was ,of course never asked about the latest inquiry but was instead asked softball soap to get the message out about all the MITIGATING circumstances that go into the sometimes seemingly strange decisions they make.
Well I have a question or two for the BBC  
Why him? 
why now ?

  

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on6:21 pm - Jan 18, 2018


REDETINJANUARY 18, 2018 at 10:39
I do hope that those minutes have been requested and went over with a fine tooth comb .
It really is so sad that it has come to this regards supporters confidence in the honesty of the people governing our game .
I really can’t see how that confidence can be restored if the status quo is maintained .
Something stinks in this whole affair and it’s more or less the same old faces  hanging about polluting the place.

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on6:23 pm - Jan 18, 2018


BALLYARGUSJANUARY 18, 2018 at 17:24
You are spot on with that post ,my friend 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:28 pm - Jan 18, 2018


Phil MacGiollabhain claiming Rangers wanted to sign Hamilton’s Greg Docherty now, but pay nothing until August. If his information is correct, then I am sure many in the Mainstream media are also aware of it.  

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/01/18/not-everyone-in-scotland-is-willing-to-play-along-with-the-sevco-transfer-hustle/

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:08 pm - Jan 18, 2018


BECT67JANUARY 18, 2018 at 13:30
25
1 Rate This
There has been much comment on here about the , let’s say, unprofessional way (derisory offers, destabilising/unsettling tactics, SMSM puff pieces etc)in which Sevco approach potential transfer targets. The following is extracted from  Video Celts and is by Andy Holt (Accrington Stanley Chairman) in relation to underhand dealings re Matt Crooks and Dean Windass:-“It’s a bit like asking permission off someone to s— his wife when he knows you’re already at it”
————-
Then there are the not to complimentary comments from Steve Clark There’s been a bid,nowhere near acceptable.
Martin Canning, rangers bid for Greg Docherty was not even worth considering.
Are the ibrox club still making friends on the journey?

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on8:19 pm - Jan 18, 2018


UPTHEHOOPSJANUARY 18, 2018 at 19:28

I would assume all of them are aware of it .
Alas if it’s not in a memo from the sevco 2012 PR dept then it doesn’t exist

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:30 pm - Jan 18, 2018


Was catching up on something.
EASYJAMBOJANUARY 9, 2018 at 20:34
Attachment  2012-04-30-Gary-Allan-Panel-Note-of-Reasons.pdf
Cluster One January 9, 2018 at 20:07Had a look for that 100 page report and can’t find it…any help?==========================My copy was only 63 pages long.
—-
The Compliance Officer Mr Vincent Lunny presented the Complaints on behalf of theScottish Football Association. (“the Scottish FA”)
from link above.Just thought this part at the start may tie in with the discussion earlier
—————
JOHN CLARKJANUARY 17, 2018 at 22:41
fan of footballJanuary 17, 2018 at 21:38‘…Bits from Lunny,s question and answer session tonight’___________That’s not a bad wee summary, fof.
I think, though, in absolute fairness , that it’s worth re-emphasising Lunny’s statement that the Compliance Officer does not himself ( except, perhaps, where the protocol empowers him  in minor matters where the alleged offender admits the  charge and accepts the penalty) actually decide a ‘case’, any more than procurator Fiscal or advocate depute would decide a case in the Courts.
————–
As i said Was catching up on something.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:35 am - Jan 19, 2018


Today’s Court proceedings: continued.

Remember, though, that sitting in the public benches, one has no access to the huge amount of paper, and that the Judge and  Counsel are so familiar with the detail that a mere word or sentence or reference is understood instantly.

They KNOW what each other means.

And there is always the problem of actually trying to hear what Counsel is saying, even though they are only a few feet away. They have their backs to you, they tend to speak in conversational tones, some tend to speak quickly, and there’s always a lot of pauses in mid-sentence as they change what you thought they were going to say, or double back on what they have just said.

So there can be a kind of Alice-in-wonderland apparently disconnected, meaningless dialogue going on. ( Those of you who remember Beachcomber in the old Daily Express will understand)

So, I do not suggest or imply that what I have written here is  totally accurate, or makes sense in itself
.There was a lot of , to my ears, indistinct mumbling and monotonous reading of extracts from relevant authoritative case-law.

What you get here is the best that I could do, as honestly as I could, with what I heard. And it’s more to give you the feel of things, the way things go in a real court-room as opposed to the slick , dramatic court-rooms of TV drama.

So, if you are interested, read on.
And if you can make proper sense of the drift, you’re a better man than I am! (Or a better woman than I am a man!)
_____

eJ’s report on the morning’s proceedings  brought us up to the point where , close to lunch, Ms Maguire  QC (for the Defender) interjected, to inform the Court that she would be arguing that the Pursuer must show malice  on the part of the police..

Up to that point, Mr Currie QC, for the Pursuer(Whitehouse), had related  the basic background from late 2010 , when Wavetower and SDM entered an agreement, the subsequent Administration, Whitehouse informing the Police of possible financial shenanigans in the acquisition of the club by Whyte, the subsequent investigation, the arrival of CG on the scene, the failure to get a CVA, the appointment of Liquidators and the later ( 14 November 2014) arrest of the Pursuer (Whitehouse), and his conveyance to the station and his being held till the Monday 14th November 2014 when he was charged with fraud and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

He was in process of attacking the Crown’s  averments  relating to  the charges brought against Whitehouse in 2014. He  quoted from the indictment ” …….having formed a fraudulent scheme…..you…David Whitehouse of MCR…..did prepare a letter to CW in /February 2011…..£18M… sold 3 years worth of tickets……’
Lord Malcolm asked: “just to be clear, the essence of the averment was that Whyte pretended to be bringing in new money?

Currie QC: yes, page 6 of Tab 1.
Lord M: Is charge one the only one involving Mr Whitehouse?
Currie, QC: No, he is mentioned in one or two… Referring to the narrative re Ticketus, …I submit that the summary of evidence makes no mention..
(He continued, reading from the indictment): “You……..Whitehouse said you had NOT known. On 16 July 2012 you ,formerly of MCR but now Administrator stated to Lord Hodge that you had not been aware of……the Ticketus arrangement and that you had not acted in conflict..”

Lord Malcolm: that looks more like a charge of fraud than of perverting the course of justice?
Mr Currie: makes it unlikely that the officer had any reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime had been committed.
On the Second detention, charge 1  conspiracy to enable CW to acquire at a discount-
 “That you, Paul John Clark and David John Whitehouse did enable CW ..to acquire.. the business and assets at less than the true market value…’
and CW, Paul Clark, David Grier……
Charge 2 is a statutory version of charge 1
I say it is far from clear that Charge 1 identified a crime!, and charge 2 is predicated on charge 1.
The Crown made no attempt prove the  true market value, as Lord Bannatyne found.
Lord Malcolm: Have I a copy?
Mr Currie:(eh, no. We’ll get one for your Lordship)
I submit that there were no reasonable grounds for detention, as required by Section 14 of the Criminal Procedures (Scotland)Act1995.
( Mr Currie then proceeded to read out from three case precedents : one , where the arresting officer had no reasonable grounds for knowing he mind of the pursuer); a second case where it was not enough for a superior officer  to have suspicions, the actual arresting officer must himself have reasonable grounds; and a third case in which it was established that it is not good enough to accept the word of a senior officer..)
Now, my Lord, you won’t find any attempt to show the passing of knowledge about Collyer Bristow’s (dealings?) to the Pursuer. Knowledge of the MCR partnership could not be ascribed to the Pursuer.
( and here, Mr Currie referred to an email from Phil Bett which he will come to later)
A charge of perverting the course of justice requires that ……… [here I lost the thread of what Mr Currie said]
Lord Malcolm: ” where the superior officer has grounds for detaining and the junior doesn’t?”
It was at this point that Ms Maguire QC made her interjection . [ now although we are not lawyers, both eJ and I thought this was adding fresh stuff that had not been previously submitted on behalf of the defender. It certainly threw Mr Currie for a moment or two]
Mr Currie responded by simply referring to the charges in the indictment.
Lord Malcolm asked whether there was any case law about ‘malice’ in civil cases? This led to a sort of inconclusive discussion, until Lord Malcolm suggested that it be discussed over lunch.
After lunch, proceedings re-started with the Judge saying to Mr Currie :I have read your copy of..
Mr Currie: We do not understand this reference to ‘malice’. There are two cases [he mentioned these, but I couldn’t get the details. One was an old (1914 House of Lords judgment, the other was a judgment in a Somebody v Chief Constable in, I think, 1930]
I submit that there is no relevance of ‘malice’.
I turn then to the background, and to the averment at Page 49 ” he denies all the circumstances”.
My learned friend says that the Pursuer denied these matters on other occasions. This is outrageous. Not to have amended the averments before ,and they should not rely on fresh [stuff]
At the heart of the first defender’s purported justification in November 2014 is  (statement..????)
that was taken by police] (Mr Currie referred to a judgment in the case of Lyons v Chief Constable of Strathclyde, in 2013)
But, he continued, back to my submission. 
( and here I simply could not hear enough to make full sense of what Mr Currie was saying. But it had to do with the number of witness statements made to DCI Robertson, with no mention in them of the police having been told that that Pursuer had ‘knowledge’, and there was even confusion in the papers between ‘Pursuer’ and ‘Mr Whitehouse’)
Mr Currie continued “In particular ( averment 2) the statements of Bett and Ross Bryan. None of the statements refer to the Pursuer until a year later!
Bett’s statement of 6/10/15 is the only reference to Pursuer (on Page 39)
My submission is that averment 2 is false.
On P 27, the written statement from  Ross Bryan on 8/05/15 references the Pursuer in connection with the second detention.And what Bryan has to say has nothing to do with what the Pursuer knew.
Now, my Lord , we have lodged a 48 page schedule , of emails.On page 1 , the first defender fails to identify…….none of the emails refer to ..
Lord Malcolm: Mr Bett is a former adviser to Mr Whyte? Has someone gone through all the emails and found nothing of relevance?
Mr Currie: We haven’t gone through the criminal stuff again,but my instructing solicitor had not found anything ..
I simply do not know how my learned friend could make such an averment.
Lord Malcolm: ” email previously mention knowledge”?
Mr Currie: that would have to be developed, and the QC should tell us! And the question arises over averment 1 in respect of the First detention.
Lord Malcolm: You’re saying that ‘denial’ is not there? Do we know whether (Mr Whitehouse) did know or did not know?
Mr Currie: he is accused of perverting the Course of justice: he was not lying, he was not asked!
[At this point, lord Malcolm declared that the Court-room was uncomfortably warm, and adjourned for 5 minutes so that some cool air could be got in.]
Back in, Mr Currie continued to attack the various averments of the defender.He began on averment 5,  about whether anything that Grier knew after December 1st  (about agreement between Ticketus and Rangers) being treated as information that he could have passed on to Whitehouse.
Averment 6, Withey’s email to Clark who emailed ..(.?)…. Fundamental misconception of the Police.
Lord Malcolm: That explains something that had me puzzled.
Mr currie: So Mr Grier forwards an email from Bett to Mr Clark. In it Bett   writes ” Paul…one of restructure in the matter of lending….Ticketus……..tickets to supporters” This email emanated from Withey, then on next page, Clark at 2.59 sends the email to Whitehouse.
Whitehouse at 3.36 sends an email to Clark ” Could you structure it on an options basis?”
Ticketus had their own legal advisers, and were .?.. by Lord Hodge..
There is no basis in this email for suggesting knowledge..no suggestion of knowledge of acting in a fraudulent manner on the part of the pursuer.
Then it is averred that “further emails forwarded by Grier to Clark set up confirmation” indicates  ‘reasonable suspicion’ 
That shows that all of the averments depend on averment 1! That averment was made despite the fact that no attempt was made to incriminate the Pursuer. No such email was produced..
Maguire QC interjects: My lord, I am concerned about that averment.
Mr Currie: ( sort of taken aback. Says something like well it should be dropped  shouldn’t have been there.)
Lord Malcolm: Well, there has been no motion. (To Maguire, QC)Do you need 5 minutes?
Maguire QC, ( having spoken to some Crown Office senior-looking chap sitting behind her): No, my Lord I’ve just had an answer.
Mr Currie continues: There are 2 versions of the email. None of these was sent or copied to Pursuer.
On averment 8, tape provided by the BBC of an interview with Whitehouse on the structure of the deal, Mr Currie simply said it was irrelevant.
Averment 9 ” David Grier knew of the deal…and not only..”   This, said Mr Currie, was an email from 1/8/11 well after the transaction of Rangers. That averment cannot provide any basis against the Pursuer.
Averment 10: ” on 17/10/12 Whitehouse…stated that everybody involved in the deal knew about it”- This does not incriminate Whitehouse’
Lord Malcolm: Is there any averment about Whitehouse’s role? with MCR? Did he make that denial?
Mr Currie: What was in the mind of the arresting officer? We’re not asking what was in the mind of Whitehouse,but what was in the Police mind? There is nothing wrong with Mr Whitehouse knowing about Ticketus unless he denied it!
in the High court action v Collyer Bristow Mr Whyte …..alleging Pursuer involved..
Lord Malcolm: Why is the first defender not entitled to some…
Mr Currie: because it is not relevant. The only averment that implicates the Pursuer at all is[???]
Lord Malcolm: If he didn’t deny it, why……….?
Mr Currie [ missed what he said]
Lord Malcom: These averments are all all denying that the averment was untrue? [ that’s what I heard!]
Mr Currie: Averment 13 summarises
Averment 14 ” …could not have been…..without the knowledge of the Pursuer…”
DCI Robertson had plenty of opportunity to ….
He was not the detaining officer
Averment 16 ” reasonable suspicion..the Pursuer signed a  comfort [?] ..project Charlotte, likely illegal basis….
DCI Robertson had reasonable basis”
” I have had…………
prior involvement, professional involvement, with rangers Football club plc.”
It is clear that DCI Robertson or the police misunderstood!
Lord Malcolm: DCI Robertson was conflating Mr Whitehouse with MCR?
Mr currie: Yes.
Lord Malcolm: I’m not inclined to go much further today. Mr Currie, how long will you need to..
Mr Currie: Tomorrow, I have just to advert to the Administrators,  and the ‘justification ‘ of detention. Another hour?
Lord Malcolm: very well. 10 o’clock tomorrow.

_______________________________

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:07 am - Jan 19, 2018


JOHN CLARKJANUARY 19, 2018 at 00:35
———–
04

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on9:12 am - Jan 19, 2018


Yesterday I highlighted the printed diarrhoea produced about Rangers by the BBC when reporting on the David Whitehouse court case.

The club entered liquidation and was subsequently sold to a consortium led by Charles Green.

In today’s Scotsman article on the same subject, the following line appears:

The club later entered liquidation and was subsequently sold to a consortium led by Charles Green.

You could be forgiven for thinking that a certain portly buffoon of a PR propagandist had supplied our so-called journalists with a list of acceptable words and phrases to use in order to avoid reporting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth regarding the death of Rangers Football Club. 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:28 am - Jan 19, 2018


Whilst its not the subject nor purpose of this court case I’m struggling to get my head around what Police Scotland thought would have happened had Whyte’s administrators not performed the actions they did.  Green’s subsequent purchase at a questionable rate is not the matter in hand remember.  To demonstrate… 

“….so there we are all were, standing on top of the crumbling cliff watching SDM fly off in his poundland helicopter.  Paul shouts “don’t worry lads I’ve got a parachute we’re all sorted.”  I thought it looked a bit dodgy.  F___ that says I.  Im staying right where I am….”

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:04 am - Jan 19, 2018


Andy Holt has set the Daily Record straight over the transfer of Josh Windass and Matt Crooks to Sevco in 2016.
“And rangers had our lads training with them whilst I was still paying their wages. Fact not a rant. I banned this, they offered €75,000 to settle when the FIFA legal minimum was €130,000.You won’t be surprised to hear we got the €130k.”

Seems a bit mean spirited.  75k for two players.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:07 am - Jan 19, 2018


Just a wee post in terms of consistency of thought.

If T’Rangers leaning Ian McCall only values Jordan Jones ( 1 international cap) at around £150k can we expect the T’Rangers leaning SMSM to get realistic about fees for any players from Ibrox, such as Josh Windass, who may be viewed as being potential income generators.

Looking at things from an independent point of view the website Transfer Market value Jones at £203k while Windass is £275k.

If as recently reported a bid of £500k from Preston North End was booted out by T’Rangers for not being enough,  then surely Jones must similarly be worth in the region of ‘£370k plus’ to either a fellow Scottish club or someone down south should they come sniffing around.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:32 am - Jan 19, 2018


    Have they sold that auld bike they had?  12

https://twitter.com/Calshy38/status/954151738436739072

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on12:26 pm - Jan 19, 2018


The thing I find most annoying about the former administrators of Rangers suing the Police and Crown Office is that they are clearly as bent as a handful of nine bob notes and the way they handled the administration / sale of assets was a disgrace.

That’s without even looking at the off record stuff which came out.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on12:36 pm - Jan 19, 2018


Interesting tweet last night from someone who claims to be Chair of a SFA Judicial Panel.

As a judicial panel chairman I would have no issue with decisions being made public. I think there may be moves ahead for that. We will see. It would also help dispel the myth we are somehow under the control of the SFA. 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on12:41 pm - Jan 19, 2018


HOMUNCULUSJANUARY 19, 2018 at 12:26

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

I remember meeting my neighbour in the street after the first Press Conference held by Duff & Phelps. “They are in on it”, was his observation. I think he may have had a point!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:43 pm - Jan 19, 2018


Today’s proceedings were somewhat curtailed, first by a late start because of travel problems, then by a motion on behalf of Police Scotland put to Lord Malcolm by Ms Maguire.
Ms Maguire asked that the proceeding be discharged at this time, that the court allows further time for an affidavit prepared on behalf of the Chief Constable and other documents to be submitted in support of the arresting officers having “reasonable suspicions” that a crime had been committed, also that Mr Currie’s arguments be limited to “malice” if today’s hearing was allowed to continue, and that Lord Malcolm should not make any summary decree before the debate on other matters that is scheduled for 8th May. 

Ms Maguire also suggested that DW’s “denial” of knowledge of the Ticketus deal had not been recorded in the witness statements, but had been said orally by DW in an interview in Manchester with DCI Jim Roberson and Sgt. Jackie O’Neil.  That was met with much head shaking among DW’s team. (I’m sure the two police officers notebooks will confirm and corroborate what was said word for word)

In response Mr Currie was scathing of Police Scotland’s position, suggesting that all they were interested in was to extend the process, at a cost to his client who was funding the case from his own resources.  He ridiculed the failure of Police Scotland to provide this information given the time that they had to prepare their defence. He sought costs be awarded to his client.

Lord Malcolm adjourned proceedings while he considered his response.

Lord Malcolm returned after 15 minutes and made a number of orders;
*  that the previously mentioned Affidavit and other documents be lodged with the court within two weeks;
*  that a further 2 day hearing be fixed;
*  that Mr Heriot’s arguments would not be limited to “malice”;
*  that Police Scotland would meet the pursuer’s legal costs associated with the request for a summary decree.

And that was that.  I’m sure that JC will fill in some of the detail from his copious notes.  We will need to keep an eye on the court rolls for the next date.

The D&P guys were pretty incredulous about Police Scotland’s latest position.  DCI Robertson himself was in the building, although not in the courtroom, so I’m sure that there were exchanges going on in the background.

I asked Paul Clark about his case, and he confirmed that it was still happening, but that the papers had been lodged a few weeks after DW’s. 

It’s interesting talking to the D&P guys just to get their feel on what’s going on and pick up on the odd bit of information that can’t be shared because of the ongoing court actions.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:50 pm - Jan 19, 2018


HomunculusJanuary 19, 2018 at 12:26
The thing I find most annoying about the former administrators of Rangers suing the Police and Crown Office is that they are clearly as bent as a handful of nine bob notes and the way they handled the administration / sale of assets was a disgrace.
That’s without even looking at the off record stuff which came out.

Certainly when this is written about I sincerely hope they manage to keep it objective.

A company (or club…or company that has “club” in the title but apparently is a club but isn’t THE Club…whatever) goes spectacularly bust.  Only it doesn’t go fully bust thanks to £27 million of new money going into it (which repays its secured debt which was most certainly real) and IN ADDITION receives £24 million in insurance because the £27m which repaid the debt apparently shouldn’t have but don’t lose site of the fact that it did.

Then, along comes the administrator and in summary sells (insert term as appropriate) for an apparently under value offer.  The police argue that’s a bit odd particularly given the administrator’s previous role in deeming it worthless and (wrongly) apply the smoke without fire principle.  Whereupon the administrator that took the thing that he himself said  wasn’t worth anything, who rebadged it as being worth a fortune and then sold it on, contrary to his responsibility as an administrator, for considerably less than said fortune and is now suing the police for £16 million because it was somehow their fault.

Funny old world
   

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on2:02 pm - Jan 19, 2018


The club later entered liquidation and was subsequently sold to a consortium led by Charles Green.
Is this stating the club was sold as an asset? Surely the club is only a name like a history it is not tangible and would be worthless. What was contained in this club of value to anyone, what is the club?
Can a club be sold seperately from a business or is the club the business incorporated, did he therefore buy the business as a whole or was the two uncorporated for we know players of the club left on the TUPE as the company folded. Confused

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:26 pm - Jan 19, 2018


The first thing the PLC did was release something like £22m negative goodwill.

That is to say they calculated that they got the assets for £22m less than they were worth.

How could an adminstrator, who when the CVA was rejected had the sole responsibility of acting in the bets interests of the creditors, justify that.

I would be stunned if this is not part of the liquidator’s report. Bearing in mind Malcolm Cohen specialises in this type of thing.

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on2:36 pm - Jan 19, 2018


Re : EJ @ 13.43 19 Jan

What a shambles Police Scotland are ! They (us) are now responsible for Whitehouse’s legal costs to go to decree – there must be questions raised in Holyrood at the conclusion of this farce & the costs accrued to the taxpayers therein .

With grateful thanks to EJ & JC for their sterling court reporting .

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on2:51 pm - Jan 19, 2018


NAEGREETINJANUARY 19, 2018 at 14:36
============
If only there was someone like say the Head of Police Scotland who could step in and sort this mess out. Police Scotland are unfit for purpose and Sturgeon has a case to answer for creating the mess in the first place.

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on3:11 pm - Jan 19, 2018


BD @ 14.36 19 Jan

I believe the current highest ranking Police Officer of Police Scotland is currently suspended pending various inquiries so he has other things to think about ! 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:49 pm - Jan 19, 2018


Court proceedings today:And here, with the same caveats as attached to my previous report, is how I believe matters proceeded.
Kicked -off at 11.00 ( travel difficulties apparently)
Ms Maguire QC spoke first. She reminded  Lord Malcolm of what she had said yesterday on whether it was necessary, as she averred, that the Pursuer had to prove malice .
His Lordship asked whether she was making a motion now.
She was not making a ‘motion’ now, but she was concerned about this, and if his Lordship was unable to rule that it was necessary for the Pursuer to prove malice, then….[kind of vague]
His Lordship said, ‘you need to ask me to do something’
Maguire QC said: I would need to make an application.
His Lordship: Is it ready now?
Maguire: No. But your Lordship has the power the power to do so, (and she quoted from some legal manual on powers to admit affidavits, motions, while the judge read it for himself in a book that looked about 5 inches thick).
She continued: There were statements that had  been made to DCI Robertson and Sergeant McNeill in Manchester relevant to the question of whether the Pursuer had known but denied all knowledge of the Ticketus deal etc.
His Lordship asked whether she was now making a motion? and that would be, what? that the Chief Constable be allowed to lodge affidavits covering the ” reasonable suspicion” of the first defender?
Maguire QC : yes: covering matters that were in the knowledge of officers at the time. There were statements that had been made to DCI Robertson and Sergeant McNeill in Manchester relevant to the question of whether the Pursuer had known but denied all knowledge of the Ticketus deal etc.
And in light of that material looking again at the background. It was not simply an order to detain. The officer concerned had spoken to the Pursuer  
It was important in justice that those statements be allowed into the case, because it puts 6/11 in context.
Lord Malcolm: The affidavit will include DCI Robertson and Sergeant McNeill (or was it O’Neill) in Manchester ?
Maguire QC: In the interests of justice..
Lord Malcolm: IF I am with you, are there implications for expenses for yesterday and today?
Maguire QC(consults colleague): If today, I offer expenses…but…
Lord Malcolm: Your case is, that absent ‘malice’ the Pursuer has no case for relief. There is a date fixed for debate-8th May.
Maguire QC: The Pursuer says that ‘malice’ is required: we say it is not. That needs to be determined.
Lord Malcolm? What about ‘malice’ and the Lord Advocate?
Maguire QC: I’m not running two horses
Lord Malcolm: Essentially, the hearing should be collapsed into one issue: in so far as ‘reasonable  suspicion’ is concerned  you invite the  Court to decide if malice is not required. ….  Mr Currie?
Currie QC: I cannot sufficiently express my incredulity. In December all my submissions and documents have been with the first defender. The conduct of my learned friend is unacceptable. She should have looked at this many months ago. She has a plan to obstruct and delay the Pursuer [ note: I think Whitehouse may be personally funding his action] What is being done is putting a restriction on my presentation over a day and a half. I don’t believe the matter of ‘malice’ is so complex. I submit that your lordship should refuse.
if you are not so minded, then the first defender should pay  from 1st May…. and the entire expenses since 1st December.
I object to the reprehensible manner of conducting this case by my learned friend
(there was a brief discussion of how the Auditors of Court would compute the expenses, before people nodded and said the auditors would manage.
Maguire QC: My motion is NOT  a plan to delay matters for the Pursuer.I reject the assertion that I am party to such conduct. My motion is accompanied by an offer to pay the expenses in accordance with usual practice when amendments are made in debate. I personally have been out of action due to ‘flu for  number of weeks since December 1st….
Lord Malcolm: from as long ago as May 2017 the first defender knew..
Maguire QC: My response is that there is no intention to obstruct or delay..
Lord Malcolm: I shall come off the bench to consider what to do.(Court rose)
About 15-20 minutes later, Court re-convened.
Lord Malcolm: 1 On the application of first defender I will make an order in terms of the written motion. I will allow 14 days for submissions
2. I cannot reasonably  [missed that completely]
3.I will continue this hearing to a two day diet, but the pursuer to decide whether to pursue this matter or wait
4.I find expenses to the Pursuer in so far as they relate to [ I lost that, but eJ thinks Crown should pay for these last two days.
I note that the Counsel for first defender strongly rejects the imputation by counsel for the Pursuer of ‘dishonourable motives’
I can make no finding in the matter,
_______
Court adjourns

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:11 pm - Jan 19, 2018


This is the first line of the column attributed to Barry Ferguson in today’s Daily Record:

‘There has to be a good reason why Rangers allowed Steven Naismith to sign for Hearts…’ 


Did they? Could they? Perhaps Sandy asked Andrew if it was OK to register the player to HoMFC?

Nope, just another guff-cloud from the Record’s sportsdesk.

View Comment

jimboPosted on4:24 pm - Jan 19, 2018


I’m a wee bit confused.  Is the case EJ and JC are reporting on separate from the case at Glasgow Sherriff Court today.  (David Grier v Police Scotland)  They sound very connected.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on4:37 pm - Jan 19, 2018


jimbo January 19, 2018 at 16:24
I’m a wee bit confused.  Is the case EJ and JC are reporting on separate from the case at Glasgow Sherriff Court today.  (David Grier v Police Scotland)  They sound very connected.
=============================
The case that JC and I attended today was the second day of David Whitehouse’s claim against Police Scotland.

David Grier’s case at the Sheriff Court will be in a similar vein.

Paul Clark will pursue a similar claim in due course.

There are further actions planned and scheduled by the three against the Lord Advocate (Crown Office).

Equally so, Duff and Phelps face a separate action by BDO for their conduct as administrators.

BDO, for their part, face a claim by Henderson & Jones (The Wavetower / Law Financial claim)

View Comment

jimboPosted on4:44 pm - Jan 19, 2018


Thanks EJ.

I dread to think how much all of this is costing.  Especially the public purse with regards to Police Scotland and the Crown Office.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on4:50 pm - Jan 19, 2018


Glasgow Sheriff Court – Wednesday 24th January

Orlit Enterprises (S) PTE Limited v The Rangers Football Club Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts – GLW-CA121-17 – Anderson Strathern LLP
Orlit Enterprises (S) PTE Limited v The Rangers Football Club Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts – GLW-CA121-17 – Dentons UKMEA LLP

View Comment

jimboPosted on5:04 pm - Jan 19, 2018


I’m confused again.  Who is Orlit Enterprises?

And why is it listed twice.  With Anderson Strathern acting for TRFC, and the other with Dentons on their behalf?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:15 pm - Jan 19, 2018


Phil’s latest article is rather interesting.

If correct, then – IMO – it seems like a RIFC/TRFC admission that chasing out Big Mike was a big mistake.

To try to entice him back now is also admission that the last 2.5 years have been wasted by the board(s) – IMO.

So this apparent U-turn WRT Ashley would – you would think – result in the immediate resignations of King and his supporters on the boards?

I know… 

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on6:00 pm - Jan 19, 2018


StevieBC January 19, 2018 at 17:15

I’m not surprised at Phil’s blog on Mike Ashley.  The Gardener was on Talksport this morning telling the nation that the Ibrox fans would welcome back big Mike (and his millions).  I wondered why he was on air and who arranged his gig?  With perhaps a touch of irony, Super Ally stated: “I think there’s a lot of the Rangers support that would welcome somebody coming in with finance who would want to invest in the team and the club.”  I tend to agree with him as I think ANYONE with a barrow load of dosh would get the blue carpet treatment up the marble staircase, regardless.  Just think, no more demonstrations in the Sports Direct emporiums by that nice Mr Houston and his friends.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:13 pm - Jan 19, 2018


jimbo January 19, 2018 at 17:04
I’m confused again.  Who is Orlit Enterprises?
And why is it listed twice.  With Anderson Strathern acting for TRFC, and the other with Dentons on their behalf?
===========================
Orlit is a company that claimed commission from TRFC for introducing investment at the time of the IPO.  IIRC TRFC actually agreed that there was some payment due, but disputed the amount.

Anderson Strathern will probably be acting for TRFC with Dentons for Orlit

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:17 pm - Jan 19, 2018


Re Mike Ashley “investing” in Rangers

After all that has happened why would anyone think he would want to buy a load of worthless shares in a PLC.

If people are actually talking about him providing loans, how onerous would the terms be for that. 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:20 pm - Jan 19, 2018


It appears from documents available at Companies House today that Jim Traynor now has full control of Level5PR after Stephen Kerr’s directorship was terminated and his shareholding transferred to Traynor’s wife, around the end of November.

View Comment

scottcPosted on6:45 pm - Jan 19, 2018


JIMBO
JANUARY 19, 2018 at 17:04

I’m confused again.  Who is Orlit Enterprises?

Paul McConville’s piece
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/the-latest-sayings-of-rangers-charles-green-blackmail-terrorists-desperados-and-ratner-esque-worst-rangers-team-ever/#more-3279

also see

http://www.mlplaw.co.uk/commercial-solicitors-2/

As far as I can see, Rangers agreed to pay a certain sum (from the second article). The current case may mean that they failed to do that or it may be something new entirely

View Comment

jimboPosted on7:15 pm - Jan 19, 2018


Thanks again ej.  I didn’t realise they used an outside firm to attract investment.  My vague memory was that Charles Green done a lot of the spadework for that.  Especially re. Mike Ashley.  Seem to think the one penny shares had some influence too.

If I remember correctly CG was desperate to get a big hitter like MA on board to encourage others to follow.  Hence the reason he got a very good deal with Rangers Retail.

View Comment

jimboPosted on7:49 pm - Jan 19, 2018


Scottc, just read that article of Paul McConville’s .  It was almost prophetic!

I’m surprised Charles Green isn’t mentioned as a co-defendant along with TRFC in the upcoming case.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:07 pm - Jan 19, 2018


BILLY BOYCEJANUARY 19, 2018 at 18:00
4
1 Rate This
StevieBC January 19, 2018 at 17:15
I’m not surprised at Phil’s blog on Mike Ashley.  The Gardener was on Talksport this morning telling the nation that the Ibrox fans would welcome back big Mike (and his millions).I wondered why he was on air and who arranged his gig?  
————
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40358177
There new 1 year extension commercial deal with Sports Direct, which replaced the arrangement they had in place with Mike Ashley’s company. is soon at an end.
Looks like no one else is willing to take them on board and Ashley is all they have left,time to start softening up the bears has begun me thinks

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:12 pm - Jan 19, 2018


EASYJAMBOJANUARY 19, 2018 at 18:20
8
0 Rate This
It appears from documents available at Companies House today that Jim Traynor now has full control of Level5PR after Stephen Kerr’s directorship was terminated and his shareholding transferred to Traynor’s wife, around the end of November.
—————
Any inclination as to why it was terminated?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:14 pm - Jan 19, 2018


JINGSO.JIMSIEJANUARY 19, 2018 at 16:11
14
1 Rate This
This is the first line of the column attributed to Barry Ferguson in today’s Daily Record:
‘There has to be a good reason why Rangers allowed Steven Naismith to sign for Hearts…’ 
—————-
Never knew he was a TRFC player17

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:19 pm - Jan 19, 2018


Cluster One January 19, 2018 at 20:12
It appears from documents available at Companies House today that Jim Traynor now has full control of Level5PR after Stephen Kerr’s directorship was terminated and his shareholding transferred to Traynor’s wife, around the end of November.
—————
Any inclination as to why it was terminated?
======================
I haven’t seen anything reported as to why Kerr has gone.  It could be for personal or business reasons.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:37 pm - Jan 19, 2018


BIGBOAB1916JANUARY 19, 2018 at 14:02
15
1 Rate This
The club later entered liquidation and was subsequently sold to a consortium led by Charles Green.Is this stating the club was sold as an asset? Surely the club is only a name like a history it is not tangible and would be worthless. What was contained in this club of value to anyone, what is the club?Can a club be sold seperately from a business or is the club the business incorporated, did he therefore buy the business as a whole or was the two uncorporated for we know players of the club left on the TUPE as the company folded. Confused
———-
Assets purchased by Green consortium in pic.
But then the SPFL Press release stated.
It is recognised that the effectiveness of a historical sporting sanction is not a straightforward concept. For present purposes, unless counsel advises otherwise, what might be considered effective in the case of a Championship or Cup might be an order that its award is withdrawn ab initio and a direction to Newco and Rangers FC that it does not represent that it was a Championship or Cup won by Rangers FC. It is understood that the historical awards of Championships or Cups are amongst the ‘assets’ of Oldco purportedly ‘sold’ to Newco, through the agency of the administrators by Oldco, in June 2012; so that Newco might now be sanctioned by SPFL if it did not cease to claim that such an award stood in the records of Rangers FC.
https://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-press-release-84/
————
Championships or Cups are amongst the ‘assets’ of Oldco purportedly ‘sold’ to Newco,
Are they amongst the assets?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:41 pm - Jan 19, 2018


EASYJAMBOJANUARY 19, 2018 at 20:19
—-
Thanks for reply.
something may come out or come up.
nothing on their web page but.
Level5PR is a new media relations and sports management company created by former Daily Record Associate Editor James Traynor and Stephen Kerr, former journalist/producer at Radio Clyde and press officer at Rangers Football Club.

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on8:47 pm - Jan 19, 2018


Why has kerrs shares been moved to traynors wife .
Is jabba trying to avoid the 30% threshold 
090909

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:50 pm - Jan 19, 2018


Walter liked him, but he also liked JT
Walter Smith(former Rangers, Everton and Scotland manager)“The one thing you will always get from James Traynor is honesty. I didn’t always like what he had to say but at least you always knew where you stood.
“He is a listener and I also found through the years that he has a way of solving all kinds of problems through logic and reason.
“I worked closely with Stephen at Rangers for many years during my second spell at Ibrox and he is a top class media professional.
“I have no doubt they will make an excellent team and Level5PR will be a huge success.”

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:50 pm - Jan 19, 2018


JIMBO
JANUARY 19, 2018 at 19:15
=================================

Indeed.

Ashley was a major shareholder in Green’s company prior to his shares being converted to shares in the PLC.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:55 pm - Jan 19, 2018


CLUSTER ONE
JANUARY 19, 2018 at 20:50
===============================

Yes but who told him to say that, or wrote it for him.

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on9:15 pm - Jan 19, 2018


Jim Traynor 
always maintained he was a good Airdrie supporter ,IIRC he even tried to buy the clubs badge when they went bust ,only to be told ,he would have to settle the clubs debts first .Hmmmmmmmm

Who pushed Jim,s beloved Airdrie over the cliff ,none other than the blue knight of the realm .

Jim Traynor then states that no matter how CG tries to package sevco 2012 it will not be the same club.

Then Jim Traynor sits in front of the Super Ally and says sevco is the same club .

The one thing you get from Jim Traynor is honesty 

Aye right Walter 

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on9:15 pm - Jan 19, 2018


CLUSTER ONE JANUARY 19, 2018 at 20:50
**********************{       }************************

Walter’s statement sounds awfully like a peculiar message being transmitted with veiled allegory to my (mostly) un-initiated ears. But I am sure he is a good man, straight and true.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on10:26 pm - Jan 19, 2018


moo_ted has posted on Twitter that;

1. (Hamilton’s Greg Docherty) did train with the first team today. ( I saw that with my own eyes)

2. There has been no improved offer from Sevco as of 6pm tonight .

3. He HAS been removed from the squad for tomorrow.

4. The reason he has been withdrawn from the squad is because Cardiff and Millwall have both put in better offers than Sevco and Accies don’t want to risk injury.

5. Accies are severely pissed off with Sevco for offering only £300k and asking for payment terms.

As usual with stuff like this, he has attracted the usual #obsessionBomb clangs, but I can 100% vouch for the veracity of what Moo says – 200% when it comes to matters involving Hamilton.

TRFC offered £300k for Docherty;

Terms were 3 payments of £100k – in Aug 2018, 2019 & 2020;

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:41 pm - Jan 19, 2018


BIG PINKJANUARY 19, 2018 at 22:26

What sort of football club would seriously consider that offer to be realistic, either as seller or buyer? By the time the fee was paid in full, Hamilton would have forgotten he ever played for them. Maybe that was part of the plan, pay the first two (belated) payments then hope the Accies forget about the third.

In the real football world, one reason, perhaps the main reason, a club would be prepared to sell a player in the January window is to finance a much needed improvement in another position in the team; under TRFC’s payment plan, however, Hamilton couldn’t even pay for a pair of football boots, let alone the player to fill them.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:52 pm - Jan 19, 2018


fan of footballJanuary 19, 2018 at 21:15
‘…Jim Traynor always maintained he was a good Airdrie supporter ,IIRC he even tried to buy the clubs badge when they went bust ,only to be told ,he would have to settle the clubs debts first .Hmmmmmmmm..’
___________
Very well remembered, fof!
I think that’s when I realised that Traynor was probably a mini-King (other than in girth!)

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:48 pm - Jan 19, 2018


easyJamboJanuary 19, 2018 at 20:19
‘…I haven’t seen anything reported as to why Kerr has gone..’
__________
I think it may have been for business reasons: he seems to have set up on his own, with a company of which he is the only shareholder (ChacePR Ltd), incorporated on 17/11/17! It’s registered office is in Paisley.

( OT, I wonder if he is the same Stephen Kerr(ex-Rangers press officer) whose wife is named Catherine McGill? And if so, whether she might be related to a Paisley chap named Michael McGill, quondam associate of SDM?

See this idle speculation?……..It’s great fun!)

On the Orlit business, that was a good spot in a long list of upcoming cases! I scrolled through twice before I saw it.

We can’t tell whether it will be anything of substance, or just some ‘conference call’ procedural business.

If it is any kind of hearing of substance, then I imagine that if it looks like touching on the finances of TRFC Ltd, it might be heard in chambers ( like the ring-fencing claim by whoever it was).

But it might just be about the amount of the claim . TRFC acknowledge there’s something to pay, but dispute the amount.

I’ve half a mind to go through to find out, because I didn’t find telephoning for info last time at all useful.

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on12:05 am - Jan 20, 2018


As we wait patiently for developments on the Res12 issue, which seems to provide the only realistic, if faint, hope of the Scottish football authorities and Rangers* ever being held to account for even a tiny fraction of the offences they’ve committed between them, I’ve been reflecting on some of the farcical decisions made by our governing bodies which have clearly been manipulated and manufactured to avoid punishing whichever delinquent club is playing out of Ibrox at any given time and appease the noxious element of its support, decisions that have irreparably damaged our trust in those officials.

There have been far too many such examples to list here but I’ve just been re-reading the SPFL’s statement as to why
there will be no further disciplinary proceedings taken by the SPFL connected with the use by Rangers of EBTs and other tax schemes,
supposedly following legal advice, allied to the SFA’s flat denial of a proposed subsequent independent review.

I’m not particularly surprised that, yet again, Rangers managed to dodge a bullet after being found guilty of a decade or more of industrial scale cheating, but I suspect that much of what blighted the LNS commission would simply have been replicated in any so-called independent review. By that I mean that if the terms of reference were drafted by the football authorities, as they were to farcical effect in LNS, then the outcome would inevitably be slanted in their favour. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

I’m quite sure that eminent Senior Counsel, Gerry Moynihan Q.C, who provided legal advice to the SPFL on the matter of Rangers EBTs, is good at his job, even if being good in this context simply means finding a way of meeting your client’s requirements, in exactly the same way that the trio of retired judges who made up the LNS commission met their client’s requirements. I’m equally confident that if the very same Q.C. had instead been asked to provide legal advice which was the polar opposite of what he provided, he would have done so and been very decently recompensed.

Neither the legal advice provided by the eminent Q.C. mentioned, nor the conclusions of the deeply discredited LNS commission constitutes law, regardless of the utter bollox trotted out by Doncaster and his fellow flat-earthers.

The football authorities were vocal about their inability to punish Rangers because their misdemeanours supposedly weren’t covered in the rules and regulations, but this is particularly ironic given the football authorities frequent abandonment of the existing rules to help Rangers, including inventing a shiny new category of temporary licence to play, all under the guise of ‘at the discretion of the board’.

So why can’t board discretion be employed to right the obvious wrong that allows a cheating club to get off-scot free, yet again?

Finally, why are off-field matters relating to Rangers invariably attributed to either Oldco or Newco, and not the football club? As far as I’m aware, and as I’ve mentioned before, no other club in world football is afforded such a contrived separation between club and company. When trophies and titles are won, they’re won by a football club, otherwise it follows that we’d have league tables of companies. Similarly, a football club should suffer the penalties and consequences of the actions of its board of directors, including the stripping of ill-gotten titles, and if our football authorities insist that the current club playing out of Ibrox is the same as the old dead one, then there should be no barrier to taking action now for past crimes.

https://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-press-release-84/

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:31 am - Jan 20, 2018


Anyone still up?  Want a nice relaxing song?

Ok this is for JC, StevieBC and AJ, BP and Tris who all stay up late.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CiyKeSnSxk

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on12:42 am - Jan 20, 2018


Jimbo
Soporific you mean. Need some stimulus at this time of night.

https://youtu.be/ZnfgRfhdpeQ

View Comment

jimboPosted on1:14 am - Jan 20, 2018


BP, As usual I’m a bit confused.  The guy who seemed to be playing lead guitar had a guitar with all the key things on one side like a bass guitar.  But there were 5 of them.  Whats that all about?

View Comment

jimboPosted on1:27 am - Jan 20, 2018


BPs away to his kip.  Anyhow,  here is a great wee programme for you to listen to BP.  I heard it on Thursday.  As a musician I think you will find it interesting.  It covers all the instruments including strings.  About sound production, pitch, harmonics etc.

Sorry my football buddies, I promise I wont wander off again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01p3n9f

Sometimes the BBC are brilliant. Just not with Scottish football.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:39 am - Jan 20, 2018


BIG PINK
JANUARY 19, 2018 at 22:26

TRFC offered £300k for Docherty;
Terms were 3 payments of £100k – in Aug 2018, 2019 & 2020
========================================

You have got to be joking.

You would amortise his value at that rate, assuming the length of contract, not actually pay the seller in yearly installments. 

Having said that, given that they are already predicting losses for next year, it’s really not that surprising. 

Who is in charge over there, J. Wellington Wimpy.

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on10:19 am - Jan 20, 2018


For Jimbo just in case he was thinking of going
https://twitter.com/ShottsBonAccord/status/954401085153841153

View Comment

Comments are closed.