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.
Cluster OneJanuary 10, 2018 at 19:29
Transfer fees have always varied from paper to paper, why, I don’t know – deliberate ploy by the clubs? bad reporting? – but with TRFC they all seem to get the same story, with identical figures, showing it’s coming from a central point and isn’t down to the reporters’ imaginations, or lack of ability. Obviously level5 at work, but so often the figures are so easily debunked by knowledgeable bampots, and worse still, proven wrong at a later date.
Jim Traynor obviously hasn’t got the hang of this idea that the internet means statements in the press, at the other side of the world, can quickly make their way to Scotland to expose yet another of his ‘Rangers’ lies! Some PR expert.
What’s all the nonsense about admin . The stands are getting done (or at least permission to fix them has been granted).
https://twitter.com/MichaelSeafarer/status/950815686988910592/photo/1
I mentioned the BBC TV documentary thing that was shown last night.
As it happens, I couldn’t get watching it at the time, but I have since seen it.
It is a bit disappointing in that, having demonstrated the ease with which assets can be hidden by declared ‘bankrupts’, there was no grilling of government ministers about what they were prepared to do.
The mention of one particular name rang little memory bells, and I was directed to a number of newspaper reports.
These mention people known to us in the football world who had business dealings with the chap mentioned, and a chap of the same name who was a shareholder in SDM’s RFC.
Of course, none of the football people mentioned was at all involved in any wrong-doing, and I, of course, make no suggestion to the contrary.
These links are related
:https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/revealed-bust-tycoon-graham-gillespie-1912885
https://www.sundaypost.com/news/scottish-news/tycoons-son-beat-up-rival-over-unpaid-loan
https://www.scotsman.com/news/court-cases-expose-bitter-infighting-between-gillespie-business-family-1-821468
PADDY MALARKEYJANUARY 10, 2018 at 20:05
What’s all the nonsense about admin . The stands are getting done (or at least permission to fix them has been granted)
——————————————————————–
Saw that earlier on a Sevco site Paddy, and apparently it proves that they are flush….All it really proves is that the roofs are broken……Or maybe because it is on the airport fly path, and they have cottoned on to Charlie’s advertising wheeze.
CORRUPT OFFICIALJANUARY 10, 2018 at 20:45
Pennies from heaven ?
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 10, 2018 at 19:53
Obviously level5 at work, but so often the figures are so easily debunked by knowledgeable bampots, and worse still, proven wrong at a later date.
————–
was it not Mick McCarthy who debunked the £1mill price tag and said it was a steel at £500,000?
PADDY MALARKEYJANUARY 10, 2018 at 20:05
4
0 Rate This
What’s all the nonsense about admin . The stands are getting done (or at least permission to fix them has been granted).https://twitter.com/MichaelSeafarer/status/950815686988910592/photo/1
—————
Refurbishment will conducted in stages starting with the Sandy Jardine Stand.
———-
Will this stand be closed for refurbishment? They never ask these kind of questions
Have we a building contractor in the house?
What kind of a job will it be to do the
” over-cladding to the roofs of the Broomloan, Sandy Jardine and Copland stands”?
and what would be the estimated total cost?
duration of the work ?
and would the areas being worked on at any given time have to be ‘no go’ areas for spectators?
Is there a time limit on the planning approval? i.e. if the work isn’t done before a specified date, will a new planning consent have to be sought?
I suspect that some sensible chaps at Ibrox have tried to at least ensure that IF the money is there, permission to do the work will also be there.
And, who knows, there might have been a successful application to Sportscotland for mediated lottery funding for a socially valuable iconic symbol of Scottish Football ( to which the SFA may decamp-
– and they wouldn’t want the roof to fall in on them)… no, that’s an unkind joke, unworthy of an auld codger like me: the office space they would need just isn’t there)
On bizapedia on which I posted my observations about TRFC Ltd not being the same club as RFC (IL), I see tonight that someone posting from ‘Aberdeen City’ has asked a question:
https://www.bizapedia.com/fl/florida-cup-llc.html
good man!
Apologies for the splash page highlighting the fund raising drive at the moment.
You shouldn’t see that page any more than once in a three day period. if it becomes a nuisance, please let me know.
Either myself or Tris will post updates (probably at the end of the weekend) as we go through the next few weeks of the campaign.
Fergus: not a man who forgets-or readily forgives.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15715467.Hampden_Park__An_open_letter_by_former_Celtic_owner_Fergus_McCann/
I worked years ago in a business where there were rumours of trading issues and redundancies that were starting to get traction and good staff and customers were being spooked and looking elsewhere.
This is was not good news.
Our MD responded by talking positively about the immediate need for investment in staff and infrastructure to the point of placing job ads and orders for new furniture.
He also said in passing that there would be a full review of the business in time with an eye to the future but not for 6 months, after the busy and profitable period.
Staff were reassured.
Clients too.
Two weeks later there was a vicious night of the long knives.
Staff were blindsighted.
In a parallel universe Rangers don’t need the speculation that is everywhere and plans for fixing their roofs is probably an equally sneaky attempt to blind sight bears and suppliers in equal measure.
I don’t honestly know exactly what will happen.
I know who does though.
The SFA and SPFL (and that includes all key chairmen) will already be in the loop and know if all the stuff we’re discussing is real or just another wee episode.
Let’s ask them.
Satire more plausible than recent coverage by the SMSM on events at Ibrox.
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/sevco-are-being-linked-with/
JC I don’t think jas from coatbridge agrees with you.He seems to be urging the florida cup directors to consider they may want to pursue yourself under federal defamation laws which he believes overrides their first amendment he reckons he is a company finance expert.
JOHN CLARKJANUARY 10, 2018 at 23:50
5
0 Rate This
On bizapedia on which I posted my observations about TRFC Ltd not being the same club as RFC (IL), I see tonight that someone posting from ‘Aberdeen City’ has asked a question:https://www.bizapedia.com/fl/florida-cup-llc.htmlgood man!
—————
That letter reads like he is trying to convince himself rather than anyone else.Threw everything at it but the letter from UEFA saying they are a new club
JOHN CLARKJANUARY 10, 2018 at 23:22
I have been told there is plenty of empty office space at Ibrox in Argyle House at the rear of the Sandy Jardine Stand, although I would need that confirmed. The SFA could easily move there should they no longer want Hampden. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Rangers are given public funding to repair the roof either. We have already seen in the past that very senior politicians even thought it was okay that Rangers defaulted on the taxes they were legally obliged to pay.
Wow. Jason really goes into some depth with that post!
sadly it’s the usual UEFA, ASA, SPL blah blah.
What is a club and what is a company Jason?
Regarding roof over cladding. Warrant has only been granted in respect of one stand. It is not known what is being intended.
As to planning permission, this is needed for works development not mere works of repair.
However there is a listed building involved at Ibrox and there may be the need to obtain listed building consent ( separate from planning permission). Although it is only part of the building which is identified in the list- the frontage of the main stand I believe for the purposes of Listed Building Consent – work to anything which lies in the curtilage of it potentially requires consent. Curtilage is not defined but refers to the entire setting of the listed building and its purpose. In this case the entire stadium would form one curtilage.
Theoretically, grants are available from Scottish government funds for repairs to listed buildings but these are limited very hard to get and practically limited to buildings of national importance (A listed) rather than regional importance ( B listed )
Listed building consent can be a very long process (I bear scars from one which took years to deal with over a new building next to an A listed building)
Still I admit that my confirmation bias is towards different beliefs than that of the people who are. But facts are facts.
DOM16
JANUARY 11, 2018 at 07:52
I guess the lengths that guys like Jason go to is to assuage the cognitive dissonance he’s experienced for the past six years. One of the points that dissonance theorists make is that people will go to all sorts of lengths to reduce dissonance. I guess that the fortnightly collective reinforcement of the groups beliefs forms a major part of the denial for many but guys like Jason need even greater comfort.
Cluster OneJanuary 11, 2018 at 07:20
shugJanuary 11, 2018 at 05:27
_________
Did you not see the few lines (above the ‘court records’ advert) that the chap from Aberdeen put in, that begin with the words “What clown invited Rangers? phoney team….”?
Yep JC I did but we know that he is correct it was the funny jas b I had to let you know about after I managed to stop laughing and rolling on the floor my two dogs must have thought I was having a fit.
I’ve not read the post by Jason? in response to JC’s own effort to make the Americans more aware of the truth of Rangers and Sevco, but I knew I didn’t need to bother, for I instantly knew that it would be full of, ‘he said, they said’ nonsense. Not even Andrea Traverso* can dictate what is and isn’t a football club, any more than the world’s most eminent doctor could pronounce Elvis is alive, and living in the body of a lookalike in a white jumpsuit – who just happens to own all of Elvis’s assets (in a basket).
Rangers Football Club was a limited company, that company is in the process of liquidation, the mere words of all the experts, in all the world, cannot change that fact – unless, that is, they can produce the evidence that a separate club existed, side by side, with the club that was a limited company, from the time of incorporation to the date of it’s insolvency. If there was, even the most flimsy of evidence, we can be 100% certain that it would have been spread across the front page of every newspaper still surviving in Scotand, and hung over the doorway of both Stewart Regan and Neil Doncaster’s offices in Hampden.
In the words of that eminent philosopher, what’s-his-name, ‘Show us Ra Deeds (evidence)!’
* Andrea Traverso is, of course, the one man whose statement on the matter is not dictated by personal desire, or needs, nor based solely on what they have been told by people with those personal desire or needs, such as those who influenced the opinion of the ASA.
I see the arch plagiarist does irony.
“My initial plan was to publish a premium piece on Kincora. My research on Blair and Brown led me back to Madeleine McCann and The Coleman Experience. My piece is explosive. An allegation has been made that will boil the blood of any parent. At £1.99, or £5.55 for three, they all make compelling reading. I also acknowledge an important source in part three of my trilogy. It’s important to give credit where it’s due.”
John ClarkJanuary 11, 2018 at 11:00
Did you not see the few lines (above the ‘court records’ advert) that the chap from Aberdeen put in, that begin with the words “What clown invited Rangers? phoney team….”?
——
That might have been me. 🙂
I’ve just seen the following on another site, and have no idea how correct it is. Does anyone have any idea if this is truly the case, and if it is, I wonder how that might affect things at Ibrox? I have no reason to believe the poster is knowledgeable in such matters, but he may well have heard it from someone who is.
‘Admin would be interesting, especially as people connected to the company are excluded from the settlement vote, so all these director creditors would be left without a say in the deal being accepted.’
Oh, and it looks like good old Pedro is still the same old Pedro, not great when it comes to dealing with five year old clubs
Daily Record SportVerified account @Record_Sport 27m27 minutes ago Pedro Caixinha suffers Mexican Cup humiliation as Cruz Azul are beaten by lower league side formed five years ago http://dlyr.ec/PaQ6xR
Homunculus
I guess that he must be getting to the point of being given his plagiarism
red hat upgrading to the level of Prince of the Plagiarists His Eminence John Cardinal James- then again my opinions are tainted by a left footed brush.
( the John James part is weird as you know I hope you saw my PM)
bfbpuzzled
January 11, 2018 at 13:03
==========================
Apologies, you must think me terribly rude, however I don’t appear to have received a PM from you.
Though being a bit of a luddite that’s probably my fault rather than yours.
I have received one or two PMs in the past, and replied to them, so I think I know where I should be looking. No new messages in quite some time.
Allyjambo
January 11, 2018 at 12:46
==============================
I think this is just as interesting, particularly if there is any truth in the notion (which I still don’t understand) that the purpose is to get rid of Dave King.
Company Voluntary Arrangements
If your limited company is insolvent, it can use a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) to pay creditors over a fixed period. If creditors agree, your limited company can continue trading.
If you’re a sole trader or self-employed, apply for an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA).How to apply
A company or limited liability partnership (LLP) can apply if all the directors or members agree.
https://www.gov.uk/company-voluntary-arrangements
You will note that all is in bold, it is that way on the HMRC website. So it’s not a majority of the directors, all of them have to agree to it.
HOMUNCULUS
king is not a director of TRFC ltd so it could be them
Hi John Clark and others from Glasgow’s East End a wee bit of social history?
https://the-shamrock.net/2016/09/18/glengarry/
HomunculusJanuary 11, 2018 at 13:45
I think the piece you refer to is talking about the company (RIFC/TRFC) deciding to call in the administrators and/or making the decision to go for a CVA, an action, or actions, that all the directors must agree to. On the other hand, my understanding of what the poster wrote is that, as creditors, by dint of their loans, people connected to the company, such as directors, do not have the right to vote on the acceptance of the CVA.
While I don’t know if there is any substance to the post, suggesting that directors who are also creditors have no right to vote over acceptance of the CVA, it does kind of make sense to deny the people who have run a company to the point, or past the point, of insolvency, any vote that may further disadvantage the unconnected, and so innocent, creditors.
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 11, 2018 at 12:49
Daily Record SportVerified account @Record_Sport 27m27 minutes ago Pedro Caixinha suffers Mexican Cup humiliation as Cruz Azul are beaten by lower league side formed five years ago
‘Ladran los perros y la caravana sigue andando’
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=photo+of+old+caravan&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=y0-Fgiu04p2G5M%253A%252CVinwgoeHfFBcfM%252C_&usg=__Lfl7TF3bk1JeVnxJSkBJ7uPahig%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibtvmAjtDYAhVGshQKHUfXDJMQ9QEINTAF#imgrc=bg71RuIubfMVlM:
The prestigious Florida Cup is on Freeview Channel 95 so some light entertainment is available in this mid season break.
Corinthians V PSV at the moment and stadium is empty.
gerrybhoy67January 11, 2018 at 14:06
” …. Glasgow’s East End a wee bit of social history?..”
___________
That was a most interesting read, gerrybhoy67. I remember reading something by the late Jack House about Glasgow Green being used for clothes-drying, but I thought was just ordinary women drying their own stuff.
I had no knowledge of the Glengarry men and Fr. Macdonnell and the Army.
I’ll now need to find a copy of William Guthrie’s book ‘Recollections of Bridgeton’!
SHUG
JANUARY 11, 2018 at 05:27
JC I don’t think jas from coatbridge agrees with you.He seems to be urging the florida cup directors to consider they may want to pursue yourself under federal defamation laws which he believes overrides their first amendment…
==========================
Don’t panic JC!
If you end up before the beaks over here…I will volunteer to be your personal Court Reporter.
[Seems only fair.]
And I might bring you food parcels of porridge and oat cakes if you end up in the pokey.
tony
January 11, 2018 at 13:57
=========================
A good point, it is something we have been discussing.
However that would also cause issues. I doubt Robertson, Dickson and Blair would act without the explicit instructions of the RIFC PLC board.
You would also have to look at what would be the point in handing the subsidiary over to an administrator. Just as much as you would have to with RIFC PLC
ALLYJAMBO
JANUARY 11, 2018 at 12:46
I’ve just seen the following on another site…
‘Admin would be interesting, especially as people connected to the company are excluded from the settlement vote, so all these director creditors would be left without a say in the deal being accepted.’
……………………………………….
I freely admit that I am not a lawyer, however I believe the above refers to a conflict of interest. It’s described as a ‘situational conflict’ in this piece from Cripps & Co:
https://www.cripps.co.uk/directors-duties-conflicts-of-interest-2/
The Companies Act 2006 s175 seems to muddy the waters (for me, anyway!) a bit.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/175
See para. 3, for example; or para. 6.
I currently feel like Burt from ‘Soap’: ‘Confused? You will be!’
Allyjambo
January 11, 2018 at 14:18
====================================
Apologies, I didn’t mean to say that what I posted was related to your question.
I just found it interesting with regards the CVA that all Directors had to agree.
It kind of negates the notion that they would use administration to get rid of King. Unless there was no intention to have a CVA, which I believe is the case with a pre-pack. However I don’t really see how they could do a prepack without the consent of the largest individual creditor and shareholder. Certainly not without him putting up a bit of a fight.
The whole CVA thing is a bit of a nonsense as well. It would be them agreeing to accept less than they were owed. They could just do that anyway.
The only thing that makes any sense, at all, is a real no nonsense insolvency.
AllyjamboJanuary 11, 2018 at 14:18
_____
I had a wee scout around and came across this re directors who are creditors of their company:
“A CVA is voted on by the company’s creditors at a meeting. There are two votes that need to be taken in account when working out the outcome of the meeting. Only those creditors present in person or by proxy count in the votes.
The first is a 75% majority of all creditors must vote in favour. Directors loan accounts can be included in the 75%, so from what you describe you would get past the first hurdle.
The second vote is effectively 50% of non associated creditors must vote in favour. Non associated creditors means that directors loans cannot be counted in this test.”
This was in reply to a query from a director who had loaned money to his company, found on this link
http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/threads/does-a-director-with-a-company-loan-class-as-a-creditor.223282/
JC @ 15.09
John I could only find this book for reference only at The Mitchell Library – good luck.
StevieBCJanuary 11, 2018 at 15:24
‘..If you end up before the beaks over here..’
_____________
Ha,ha!
I don’t think even a Florida lawyer could argue that a statement of legal fact and/or the expression of an opinion could be seen as being slanderous, libellous, defamatory, unkind or whatever other term might be used.
in any event, I am like certain ex-footballers and one ‘club’ chairman, in that I am personally without assets (aye, ok, my 10 year old Auris might constitute an asset)!And they would have a damned hard job getting any dosh frae Mrs C.
(No sugar or blueberries or raisins in the porridge, please, and no cream-just full fat milk(warmed, if the porridge is cold, cold if the porridge is hot) and a couple of tattie scones, buttered ( salted butter).
http://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/15811616.MacRoberts_hit_by_loss_of___2m_in_Rangers_court_fees/?ref=ar
gerrybhoy67January 11, 2018 at 16:28
‘…I could only find this book for reference only at The Mitchell Library ..
______________
And Amazon, Alibris and Rare Books produced a blank! I suppose if there is a copy to be had it will be well outside my price range!
Homunculus/AJ,
Interesting points re the potential or otherwise of Admin as a route to a CVA that gets rid of King.
I am happy to be corrected by those more knowledgeable than me on these matters but the term “pre-pack” is to my understanding used to describe an administration event where there is a pre-arranged rescue package in place which can be put in place once the Administrators have done their job in restructuring the company to create an enterprise that is potentially sustainable going forward.
The persons who end up in control via the pre-pack might be the existing shareholders/directors or a third party willing to step in and take over the restructured company. But, and this is bit that I am more than happy to be corrected on, any such pre-pack of itself requires a CVA – an agreement with the creditors (usually involving a haircut) whereby they agree the pence in the pound that they will get back.
For all the reasons discussed in your posts I am sceptical that a CVA can be got through that gets rid of King. David Low’s blog sets out the quite exquisite bind that the Company and Directors are in because of the actions of King.
RIFC remains a loss making enterprise without a credit line form a bank (c) PMG. They have been circling the plughole for a long time now and it is only the regular cash injections from Directors that has given them sufficient momentum to avoid being sucked down.
If further funding does not come through then an insolvency event becomes inevitable. What I can’t fathom is how a successful CVA can be orchestrated. Increasingly I tend to the view that Admin may very well = liquidation. These things as we know can take on a life and momentum of their own.
Homunculus
I tried again as you know my clumsiness is matched only by my ineptness -the only brain I have is in my head and it is not connected to my body.
JOHN CLARKJANUARY 11, 2018 at 11:00
14
2 Rate This
Cluster OneJanuary 11, 2018 at 07:20shugJanuary 11, 2018 at 05:27_________Did you not see the few lines (above the ‘court records’ advert) that the chap from Aberdeen put in, that begin with the words “What clown invited Rangers? phoney team….”?
——————–
This morning i had not had my coffee yet JC so missed that, i did have a read over it again.
I now see What clown invited Rangers? Phoney team existing purely on loans from tame directors, and run by a crook.
But the part that caught my eye when i read over it again was.
By Jas B.Coatbridge, LanarkshireJanuary 9, 2018
Good morning from the UK. I am a Company Finance expert in the United Kingdom.
————-
Did this company finance expert work for rangers 1872 by any chance?
If this guy is a finance expert that comes out with that rubbish, then i must be Dave king and can you give me any free expert finance advice on how to save this basket of assets from ibrox.
I may be wrong but I understand the loans to be viewed as money taken from the company –
HMRC Guide https://www.gov.uk/directors-loans
1. OverviewA director’s loan is when you (or other close family members) get money from your company that isn’t:
a salary, dividend or expense repaymentmoney you’ve previously paid into or loaned the company
– please advise?
Cluster OneJanuary 11, 2018 at 18:05
‘Did this company finance expert work for rangers 1872 by any chance?’
__________
Weeeell, there is a James B…. who is Secretary of a five-year-old football club, and also Secretary of a plc whose principal business is that of being the holding company of that 5-year-old-club.
Such an one might conceivably have, ready to hand, the kind of brainless and irrelevant nonsense in defence of an indefensible proposition that we have seen produced.
But, no, no one who can write such tosh would ever be employed as a company secretary: must be another Jas B.. , surely?
And one with an apparent disdain for the intelligence of American businessmen, to boot.
GERRYBHOY67JANUARY 11, 2018 at 14:06
7
0 Rate This
Hi John Clark and others from Glasgow’s East End a wee bit of social history?https://the-shamrock.net/2016/09/18/glengarry/
—————
Sacred Heart School was opened,
My first school
thanks for that a good read
GERRYBHOY67JANUARY 11, 2018
I may be wrong but I understand the loans to be viewed as money taken from the company
I may be wrong but I understand the loans to be viewed as money taken from the company –HMRC Guide https://www.gov.uk/directors-loans 1. OverviewA director’s loan is when you (or other close family members) get money from your company that isn’t:a salary, dividend or expense repaymentmoney you’ve previously paid into or loaned the company– please advise?
++++++++++++++++++++++++
That HMRC advice relates to the common situation where directors borrow money from their company. Here RIFC (or TRFC?) has borrowed money from its directors.
The only way I can see administration working (to eliminate King) would be for the 3 Bears plus Johnston, Scott etc., to tell King that they are intent on doing a pre-pack without him to free themselves of the constraints of the TOP ruling and the toxicity that is King himself.
The pre-pack (using TRFC or a Newco) would see ownership of the assets transferred to those who have loaned the club money (3 Bears, Johnston, Scott etc.) would be set up carrying forward all TRFC liabilities to trade creditors in full, but all loans would be written off (possibly with King maybe getting 50% back over a period of years). High earners would be released as part of the administration process to expedite the club getting to a break even point. There might even be scope to offer 50p in the £1, or more rather than payment in full.
TRFC (or a Newco if used) would then seek to re-capitalise itself free from the toxic connection with King. Anything from £5m to £10m could be raised. Club 1872 would be invited to participate with their free funds, but given a guarantee of the option to buy further shares from future monthly pledges (a bit like FOH or HSL). New opportunities could open up for Retail, Sponsorship and other Commercial activities.
Problem No. 1 They will suffer an immediate 15 point penalty. There would also be no UEFA licence for 2018/19
Problem No. 2 If the newco route is taken, how will that be managed by the SFA? I’d imagine the powers that be would use their discretionary powers to treat it just like an administration with a CVA exit. The view would be that if all trade creditors were to be paid in full there would be no need for the SFA or SPFL to go overboard on sanctions. There might be a token transfer embargo for one window.
Problem No 3. Again if the newco route is used, would UEFA require 3 years membership to allow participation in Europe.
Problem No 4. Small shareholders would get burnt (including Club 1872 to some extent)
It’s not a great option, but it could work even with limited co-operation from King.
EASYJAMBOJANUARY 11, 2018 at 19:47
TRFC (or a Newco if used) would then seek to re-capitalise itself free from the toxic connection with King. Anything from £5m to £10m could be raised. Club 1872 will be invited to participate with their free funds,
—–
The club 1872 who backed kings boycot and helped get rid of the previous board.
———-
Problem No 4. Small shareholders would get burnt (including Club 1872 to some extent)
—-
And again The club 1872 who backed kings boycot and helped get rid of the previous board.
How would they feel if they got burnt and the one king they paraded to the top is ousted? would they then have to lie down like sheep, knowing they got their fingers burnt, their free funds would soon dry up with calls of “you backed king, you told all the supporters to back king”
the club 1872 may have to regroup also with a different name and start again
Word on the street is Steven Naismith is in talks with hearts .Are Sevco 2012 s finances even worse than we thought ,when they can’t even afford a player who will play for zilch,nada ,nowt .Or have they lodged papers regards admin and the door is shut to all comers
Cluster One January 11, 2018 at 19:59
——————————–
I haven’t thought through all the potential problems re Club 1872, but there are certain influencers (such as Chris Graham and Craig Houston) who could be ditched and allow a more independent fans org (as Rangers First was before the merger) to flourish once more. It could be sold to fans with a place on the Board for a suitably qualified and vetted representative (e.g. with an accounting, legal, retail or commercial background).
CLUSTER ONEJANUARY 11, 2018 at 19:59
What about renaming themselves Club 2012
There was a podcast on the CQN site
In which Tom Grant discusses the Mo Johnstone saga . If what he says is true then it looks like the old dead club were up for breaking rules long before the EBTs .
I did not know that MJ had been fined by uefa for breaking a legally binding pre contract agreement with Celtic .
Wonder what the SFA had to say to ragers and mo
probably …..well done lads
“Recollections of Bridgeton”
http://www.glescapals.com/ml-bridgeton.htm
This is not the W Guthrie book but another of the same name with readable PDF pages and may be of interest.Below is credited to William Gutherie – http://www.glasgowhistory.co.uk/Recollections.htm
I hope these help.
Friday 12th January
EXTRA DIVISION
INNER HOUSE OPPOSITION TO MOTION
P341/17 Pet: The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers for Orders under section955
This looks like King’s appeal or TOP’s opposition to such an appeal (the case number is that used for the TOP’s action against King).
Thanks Ballyargus
GERRYBHOY67
JANUARY 11, 2018 at 18:43
===================================
From HMRC’s perspective that is the most relevant part of it, where the Director is taking money out of the business, making them a debtor.
Simple scenario. Person running business regularly gets things paid for them. Let’s say bills, car loan etc. However they use the business bank account to do that. As if it was there own. When the accountant is balancing the books at the end of the year he has to account for everything, so he calculates how much has gone out that way and calls it Director’s loan. If there is sufficient profit he pays a dividend to the Director (on paper), which is then offset against the loan account and the books balance.
This is why that aspect is of most interest to HMRC, they want their Tax on that. It is a benefit.
However as I understand it the scenario can work the other way. The Director is actually paying bills for the business from his own money. Perhaps if it is a “start-up” and he is trying to build the business. In an instance like this the business owes him money and he is a creditor.
That is very broad brush and someone like EJ can explain it in more detail, or indeed tell me it’s a lot of nonsense. It’s just what I have picked up and could easily be wrong.
LORD MALCOLM – C Richardson/N Marchant, Clerks
Thursday 18th January 2018
Starred Motion (2 days)
A295/16 David Whitehouse v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland &c – A & W M UrquhartLedingham Chalmers LLP – Scottish Government
This is part of Whitehouse’s £9m claim.
EASYJAMBO
JANUARY 11, 2018 at 19:47
========================================
It’s an interesting scenario EJ, however can I suggest another problem.
Would they really want the support to see a war between Dave King and the rest of the board.
I think they would need him onside, and I think that would require him to get his money back, and that would include his loans and his shares payments. Albeit the share money went to whoever sold them to him.
Perhaps as a real Rangers man he would be more altruistic, who knows.
EASYJAMBOJANUARY 11, 2018 at 20:07
2
0 Rate This
Cluster One January 11, 2018 at 19:59——————————–I haven’t thought through all the potential problems.
———-
Round every corner there is another problem from this ibrox club.No matter what way they turn they are confronted with more problems
Homunculus January 11, 2018 at 20:43
Would they really want the support to see a war between Dave King and the rest of the board.
I think they would need him onside, and I think that would require him to get his money back, and that would include his loans and his shares payments. Albeit the share money went to whoever sold them to him.
Perhaps as a real Rangers man he would be more altruistic, who knows.
===========================
If King doesn’t come up with the NOAL funding, as promised to the Board and the Auditors, then a public flogging of King should be a given. I think it would have general approval from the Sevco fans who have a history of switching viewpoints on certain individuals from “our hero” to “public enemy number one”.
King would be able to retire disgracefully back to South Africa.
HOMUNCULUSJANUARY 11, 2018 at 20:43
———-
Perhaps as a real Rangers man he would gift his shares to the fans. Craig Whyte once considered this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/scottish/rangers-owner-craig-whyte-considering-gifting-shares-to-supporters-7294124.html
EASYJAMBOJANUARY 11, 2018 at 21:03
King would be able to retire disgracefully back to South Africa.
then a public flogging of King should be a given. I think it would have general approval from the Sevco fans who have a history of switching viewpoints on certain individuals from “our hero” to “public enemy number one”.
——
But then again these ibrox fans. not only ibrox fans but the media will be laughed at once again by the scottish public
Homunculus – the advice from HMRC states ” isn’t money you’ve previously paid into the Company ” so it seems like this money is excluded?
A bit of confusion appearing here regarding CVAs
A Company Voluntary Agreement is entered into instead of administration. It is a way to restructure debts owed by the company IF your creditors will accept the new terms. They all get all the money they are owed. ALL the directors of a company would have to agree to that sort of CVA.
If a company goes into administration, one of the routes out is via a Creditors Voluntary Agreement, whereby the creditors of the company agree to accept a reduced payment to settle their debts. This is voted on by hte creditors of the company and is passed with a 75% acceptance.
The two CVAs are not related; just confusingly have the same initials. It did not help that in 2012 many of the papers referred to the latter in Rangers case, but used the words from the former
EASYJAMBO
JANUARY 11, 2018 at 21:03
===============================
I take your point and 100% agree with that.
fan of footballJanuary 11, 2018 at 20:03
Word on the street is Steven Naismith is in talks with hearts .Are Sevco 2012 s finances even worse than we thought ,when they can’t even afford a player who will play for zilch,nada ,nowt .Or have they lodged papers regards admin and the door is shut to all comers
_________________
From what little information there is on the proposed deal from Hearts, Norwich are looking for some money, probably upfront
(if Hearts can afford to pay it, I’d presume around £250K -£300K), so Naismith’s own terms won’t help TRFC complete any move for him. If they’ve any sense they won’t get involved in another Murphy style scenario, but then again, they’re not noted for common sense.
I wonder if Hearts have now become seriously interested in a player they presumed was heading towards Glasgow, until a certain rumour was acknowledged by the mainstream media.
SCOTTC
JANUARY 11, 2018 at 21:25
=============================
Thanks for clearing that up.
Sorry if I created any confusion.
easyJambo
January 11, 2018 at 20:34
‘easyJamboJanuary 11, 2018 at 20:38
________
I had the Whitehouse business diaried, eJ, but that was a good spot to catch tomorrow’s business.
I think King’s appeal must just have been lodged a day or two ago, and TOP is petitioning the Inner House in opposition to the granting of leave.
Must be a routine thing, since it’s not a ‘starred’ motion, and only TOP’ s lawyers are mentioned.
I’ll go in for 9.00 a.m tomorrow, since no time was specified. Like other business recently it might be decided in Chambers, so I have no great hopes of hearing TOP’s grounds for opposing.
[Of course, it may not be about opposition to an appeal. TOP might just want the Court to confirm that TOP does still here and now have its own authority to ‘cold-shoulder’, no matter what view the Court takes of the Court’s powers under S 955!
If the market-place believed that TOP has no longer got that power independently of the Courts, I think the Takeover Panel/Stock exchange would be decidedly shaken: every kind of buccaneering pirate of a dodgy director would have a field day, breaking the rules about the 30% to try to make easy killings]
I’ll try to find out tomorrow.
BallyargusJanuary 11, 2018 at 20:25
‘…I hope these help..’
___________
They do, indeed, Ballyargus.
Kind of make me embarrassed , though, at how little I know of my native city!
Mind you, this blog has got me kind of used to the idea that there’s a hell of a lot of things I know little enough about!
Been like old times this past few weeks. The difficulty experienced by most media outlets attempting to explain technical stuff has thrown the blog under a very flattering light.
Outstanding and educational, more than you could shake a shinty stick and an accordion at. ?