The Existence of Laws

ByTrisidium

The Existence of Laws

A Blog by James Forrest for TSFM

I am a socialist, and as a socialist I believe in the fundamental goodness of people. Some people find that hard to believe when they read the stuff I write.

I published my first novel recently, on politics and the corrupting nature of it, and it is a deeply cynical book, a book where no-one has clean hands come the end. What has surprised some of those who’ve read it is that I didn’t focus on the lies and smears of the right, but the hypocrisy and deceit of those who claim to be of the left.

Corruption, you see, doesn’t respect political boundaries or points of view. It’s like rainwater. It finds every crack, and gets in there.

My political beliefs revolve around two apparently paradoxical elements; the belief in the inherent decency of people and the need for a strong, and powerful, state. I believe the second underpins the first, and this brings me into conflict with a lot of people, some on the left and some on the right. Too many people see the state as inherently evil, as something that interferes too much in the lives of ordinary people. As something suffocating.

Yet the state exists to protect us. It exists to provide a safety net. It exists to regulate and to oversee. If the state is made up of bad people, if the gears of society are captured by those with malicious or selfish intent, the results are obvious; war, corruption, chaos.

The vast majority of our problems in the modern age can be neatly summed up in two lines from Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming”, which I used to open my novel. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

We live in a time when those who are protecting their own interests have assumed such power that they’ve cowed the rest of us. They have become a law unto themselves. They have changed the nature of the game, because they have sapped our will to the extent some barely put up a fight anymore. The weak get weaker, and the strong use their strength to crush the rest even more. It is a vicious struggle, a downward spiral.

Society is held together not only by the endeavour and common interests of its citizens but by a collection of laws. We elect the people who make those laws. They do so in our name, and we can remove that right every four years. That is a powerful thing, and we do not appreciate it enough. The present corruption exists because we allow it to exist.

The people around me continue to puzzle over my uncommon interest in the affairs of a football club on the west of Glasgow. My own club plays in the east end. I tell those who ask that my primary interest in the goings-on at the club calling itself Rangers is no longer about football; how could it be, after all? With promotion this year they are still a full two divisions below us, emasculated, skint, weak and unstable. If we were fortunate enough to draw them in cup competition the match would be over, as a tie, by the halfway point … in the first half.

In footballing terms they are an utter irrelevance.

Rangers is more than a football club to me. They are a symbol. Their unfolding calamity is an on-going outrage. What is happening there, what is being allowed to happen, is an offense to decency. It is a stain on the face of our country.

In short, it is a scandal. It is a scandal without parallel in sport.

Yet it’s not just a sports story either. If it was, I might not be so focussed on it. What is happening at Rangers is a colossal failure of governance. It is a damning indictment against the very people who are supposed to oversee our game. It is a disgraceful abrogation of responsibility from those at the top, those who claim to be “running things.”

If this is not a failure of governance it is a result of corruption at the heart of our national sport. It says they are bought and paid for, and I will say no such thing here.

So let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. We’ll say instead that what they are is weak, indecisive, inept and disconnected from reality.

It reminds me of our political class, which has become insular and ignorant about what the public wants, and what it needs. It’s not a wonder parties like UKIP can achieve national vote shares of 25% at local elections. Nigel Farage strikes me as a dog-whistle politician, the kind who knows how to appeal to a select group of voters. He is little different to Charles Green, the man who beguiled Rangers fans into handing over large amounts of money, because he was “standing up for the club.” It is easy to do what he did, easy to do what Farage is doing.

Real leadership requires toughness. Say what you like about the Tories, but they have that in spades. Yeats was right about the worst being full of passionate intensity. Green was. Farage is. Cameron and Osborne personify it in their political outlook.

It is easy to be cowed by blunt force politics, and by “tough talking Yorkshire men” and venomous speeches about “strivers and skivers.” The politics of divide and conquer is the oldest form of politics there is, and it’s no surprise to see it practiced by some of the vested interests in the game here in Scotland. Yet, lest we forget … something significant happened last year. The maligned and the ignored, the weak and the voiceless found something they never realised they had. They discovered that, in a very real sense, the power was in their hands.

Last year, the fans rose up when the governing bodies and the media went all-out to save Rangers from the self-inflicted wounds caused by a decade of cheating, malpractice and ineptitude. I have no problem calling that what it was.

What happened at Rangers seemed incredible, but it was all too predictable, and some of us had been talking about it for years before it hit. The Association seemed caught in the headlights but it would amaze me if they really were as insular and ignorant as they appeared. They must have known how bad the outlook was for Rangers. They just chose to ignore it.

They were aided and abetted by a thoroughly disreputable media, a collection of cowards and compromisers, charlatans and frauds, masquerading as journalists, but who long ago laid aside any claim to be bold investigators and settled for commenting on events as they unfolded. More often than not, with their ill-informed opinions, sometimes due to weaknesses in intellect and others wilfully ignorant, they failed even in that.

Entire newspapers became PR machines for crooks and swindlers. They aided in the scam because they didn’t do their jobs, some because they were lazy, some because they were incompetent and others because they wanted a seat at the table and were willing to sacrifice whatever integrity they once had in exchange for one.

That all of this was embraced by the Rangers fans is amazing to me. They trusted when they should have been asking questions. They closed their eyes, covered their ears and sang their battle tunes at the top of their voices so they wouldn’t have to hear anything they didn’t like. As incredible as I found it then, and still find it now – and now, even more so, when they have already seen the results of it once – I find it pathetic too, and I do feel pity for some of them.

A lot of these people are genuine football fans, and nothing more. They have no interest in the phony narrow nationalism, or the over-blown religion, or the notion of supremacy which manifested itself in a ludicrous statement from McCoist when interviewed recently on Sky.

Some of the Rangers fans look at their team of duds, kids and journeymen, they look at a boardroom of cowards and crooks, they look at a failing manager in his first (and last) job in the game and at a dark future and are not in the least bit impressed by, or interested in, the chest-out arrogance espoused in those ridiculous words “we are the people.” They know full well that their present crisis was made by men like McCoist, and they understand that pretentious posturing is not an act born of strength, but a scrambling around in the gutter, and a symptom of weakness.

They understand their position, and they hate it. And because they care about Rangers, because they value the club, because they cherish those things that made it a great Scottish institution, they want that back. They understand that before the Union Jack waving, Sash singing, poppy wearing, Nazi saluting, Orange element became the public face of their support Rangers meant something else, and that, above all things, is what pains them the most.

People do not hate Rangers. When the country appeared to turn its back last year, they were turning the back on favouritism and the bending of rules. Yet it would be a lie to say that there is not an element of dislike in the gleeful mockery of many rival fans.

But they don’t hate Rangers either. They hate the version of it around which a certain section of the support continues to dance. They hate the version which hates, and so too do many, many, many Rangers supporters, and they definitely deserve better.

David Murray chose not to openly challenge that version. Indeed, he encouraged certain strands of it to flourish and grow, with his “Britishness Days” and his effort to turn the club into the “team that supports the troops.” Other clubs have done as much, if not more, for the British Army than the one that plays out of Ibrox. Other clubs have given more money. Other clubs have lent their support to those on the front lines. They just chose to do it with respect, and with class, and with dignity. They chose to do it in private, understanding that there eventually comes a tipping point between looking after the ends of the soldiers and using them to promote your own.

The army has not battened on to Rangers. Rangers has battened on to them, and although it is unclear when an altruistic motive became darker, what started out as a gesture of solidarity is now used to entrench division and promote a notion of superiority.

Craig Whyte took over from Murray and immediately understood the lure of the “dog whistle.” He knew too that the media would accept whatever he told them, without question, and as he spoke up for “Rangers traditions” he made sure the lunatic fringe was well onside. He met face to face with the hard-core extremists in the support first and made them his praetorian guard. They spoke up for him until the day the club entered administration.

So, whereas Murray pandered to them and Whyte used them to further his own ends, it was only a matter of time before someone suggested to Charles Green that he could use the same tactics to win over the support. He went even further and blatantly promoted and encouraged this mind-set, and stoked the hate and nonsense to frightening new heights. The same people who cheered Whyte to the rafters jumped on board the Big Blue Bus and the results are clear.

Through all of it, the ordinary Rangers fan has seen his club buffered against the rocks, battered, broken, smashed to smithereens and sunk. Now there’s a big hole in the side of the lifeboat, and they are terrified that further tragedies await.

They are right to be concerned. Much of the media is still not telling them what they need to know. The people in charge of their club – the owners who have lied, the former hack who covered up the truth about Whyte and now acts as a mouthpiece for Green, the “club legends” who are content to sup with the devil and take his greasy coin when they should be standing toe-to-toe with the fans – are trying to silence those members of the press who do have facts to present.

How many times now have media outlets been banned from Ibrox for daring to report the truth? The manager who demanded the names of a committee last year defends those inside the walls who are desperate to keep secret the things that are going on. He is either an unprincipled coward, or he is, himself, bought and paid for. The fans suffer for it.

The “inconvenient truth” is still being kept from them, and this denies them any chance to play an active role in their club. Indeed, it is all too possible that they’ve passed a point of no return, and that their club is heading for a new liquidation event and it can no longer be stopped.

In either case, their power has been eroded to the point at which they must feel they have nothing left to do but stand back and watch what happens next.

They are wrong. I am a socialist. I believe in the inherent good of people. I think the ordinary decent Rangers fans are the only people left who can save their club … and the means by which they will do it is as simple as it could be.

They must stand up for “big government.” They must embrace the need for a “strong state.” They must lobby the SFA, and they must trust the SFA and they must get the SFA to follow its own rules and thereby save them from any further harm.

There is a tendency amongst some Celtic fans to see our governing bodies as pro-Rangers. If it is true then those running our game are ruining Scottish football without benefiting the thing they love more. The incalculable harm that has been done to Rangers in the last 20 some months is a direct result of the subservient media and the willingness of the football authorities to be “deaf, dumb and blind.” Those who believe this has actually helped the Ibrox club have not been paying attention in class. It has irrevocably scarred them, and it may yet have played a hand in destroying them once and for all, as a force if not as a club entirely.

For years, the SFA sat and did nothing as a club in their association operated a sectarian signing policy. They did nothing whilst the fans sang sectarian songs. In their failure to act they strengthened those elements of the Rangers support, instead of isolating, alienating and eventually helping to eliminate those who saw that club as a totem pole of division and hate. Their failure over EBT’s, and their lack of scrutiny, led to one of the greatest scandals in the history of sport, and I say that with no equivocation at all. The testimony of their registrations officer in the Lord Nimmo Smith investigation was a disgrace and in years to come it will rank as one of the most disreputable and damaging moments in the association’s history.

The most egregious failures of all were the failures in the so-called “fit and proper person” tests, which allowed first Whyte and then Charles Green to assume controlling positions at Ibrox. They will pass the buck and say the responsibility lies with the club itself, in much the same way as they are content to let the club investigate itself at the present time, but any neutral who looks at this stance knows it is unprincipled and spineless. It’s like letting the defence set the terms at a trial. It is foxes investigating the chicken coop.

It is a blueprint for corruption, and a recipe for disaster.

It is now too late for the SFA to declare Green “unfit”, as it was too late when they finally slapped that title on Craig Whyte. He and his allies own Rangers, and they control its destiny. They can push the club to the wall if they choose, in the final extremity, if that gets them what they want. The time for changing that is past. The damage has already been done. The barbarians are not at the gates. They are inside the walls, and sacking the city.

The SFA will be forced to punish Rangers for the sins of the owners, for the second time in as many years, and whilst it is right that the club face up to that, all the better to send a message to other clubs and other owners, the SFA cannot be allowed to slither off the hook here as though this was none of their doing. Green will skip off into the sunset. Craig Whyte has yet to pay his fine. These people never cared about Scottish football and they don’t care now.

The SFA are supposed to. Our governing body is supposed to govern, for the good of the whole game, and not as a support system for a single club. What they have allowed to happen on their watch is absolutely shameful and if the people responsible were men at all, with any sense of accountability, they would resign en masse.

They can pretend ignorance, but only the truly ignorant would accept that. Craig Whyte was not inside Ibrox a week before RTC and other sites were dismantling his entire business history, with some of the people here doing the work the SFA would not. Whyte himself claims to have made the governing bodies aware of the scale of what was facing the club, and they did nothing at all. Heads should have rolled a year ago.

In October of last year, on this very site, I posted an article in which I wrote:

“Which isn’t to say the due diligence matter isn’t worrying, because, of course, it is. Again, no-one is going to convince me that the SFA has conducted proper due diligence on Charles Green and his backers. No-one will convince me they are satisfied that this club is in safe hands, and that the game in this country will not be rocked by a further implosion at Ibrox. They failed to properly investigate Craig Whyte, because of lax regulations requiring disclosure from the club itself, regulations which are just a joke, but they can be forgiven for that as the press was talking sheer nonsense about him having billions at his disposal, and a lot of people (but not everyone!) were either convinced or wanted to be convinced by him.

To have witnessed what Whyte did, to have witnessed the Duff & Phelps “process” of finding a buyer, and having Green essentially emerge from nowhere, with a hundred unanswered questions as to his background and financing, for the SFA to have given this guy the go ahead, only for it to blow up in their faces later, would annihilate the credibility of the governing body and necessitate resignations at every level. There would be no hiding place.”

There are times when it is fun to be right, but this is not one of them. It is dispiriting and disquieting to have been so on the nose. It scares the Hell out of me, as someone who loves football in this country, to have seen this matter clearly when the people running our game apparently either did not or chose to ignore very real, very obvious, concerns. The Internet Bampots had no special insight or access to information that was denied those at the SFA. We just weren’t prepared to ignore it and pretend that it wasn’t there. There was too much at stake.

I have become convinced that things will never change until the Rangers supporters join us in demanding the full and unabridged truth here. They need to come out from under the bed, and confront their fears. They need to be willing to take the consequences, so that their club can emerge clean from this, and start again, with all this behind them.

And it can all happen with one simple thing. The application of the rules.

The existence of laws comes down to a simple principle; they protect society from those elements within it who are interested only in their own selfish ends. We may cry out at those rules and regulations we see as “restrictive”, but the law was not made to restrict our freedoms but to protect them. Had the SFA years ago acted against Rangers sectarian signing policy, and the songs from the stands, the club would not have mutated to the point where there was no help on hand when they needed it the most. Let’s not kid ourselves about this; Whyte and Green were only able to grab control because the club itself has a dreadful image which put off respectable and responsible buyers. The SFA could have helped change that perception years ago and did nothing.

The SFA could have conducted its own investigation into who Craig Whyte was. They could have asked David Murray for full disclosure when he was running up £80 million of debt, a sum of money that is beyond belief for a single club in a small provincial backwater league. Had they had the guts to do that the club would never have spent itself into oblivion and forced the hand of Lloyds, which led indirectly to their ignominious end.

The SFA could have fully investigated Charles Green and the means by which he took control, instead of rushing through a license. His emergence at the last minute was transparently suspicious and designed to force them into a quick decision, but they did not have to bow to that pressure by making one, without being in possession of the facts, as it is now 100% clear they were not.

Had they asked for every document, had they insisted on legal affidavits and personal securities from investors (and this would have been perfectly legitimate and is common place in other licensing areas) none of this would have come to pass. After Craig Whyte they had a moral responsibility to the rest of the game to get this one right and their failure is without parallel in the history of Scottish football.

As the club hurtles towards a new abyss, names are cropping up which should send a shudder down the spines of every honest, genuine supporter of not only Rangers but every team in the land. The SFA claims that a strong Rangers is essential for the sake of Scottish football, but they have been extraordinarily lax in protecting that club, and therefore the game, from destructive elements. Craig Whyte and Charles Green had dubious personal histories, and the acquisition of the club itself was mired in controversy and scandal. Yet it was allowed.

Neither Green nor Whyte were known to have operated outside the law, yet neither was worthy of trust or stood up to scrutiny. Neither man should ever have been granted the status as fit and proper persons to assume a role in our national sport, and if it is true of them what can we say about the three men who are, presently, being touted as the Great White Hopes for a bright, new Rangers future; Dave King and the Easdale brothers?

King recently cut a deal with the South African government over an on-going dispute over taxes. In other words, he pled guilty and accepted the central plank of their argument; that for years he was engaged in wilfully with-holding vast revenues from their Treasury. The media does not like to put it like that, and the SFA seems willing to ignore it utterly, and this would be scandalous enough. But it does not stop there. HRMC rules – as well as the SFA’s own governance documents – actually bar him from serving on the board of the new club.

Last but not least, aside from being an admitted tax cheat, King is also awaiting trial in South Africa, having been indicted for corruption, forgery and fraud – 300 charges in total. Yet as recently as last week, we were told that the Association was willing to look at him and consider representations from his lawyers. This is almost beyond belief.

If Dave King’s position is untenable, and he is yet to be convicted of a crime, what can we say about the position of the Easdale’s? One of the two brothers, Sandy, has already served jail time. He is a convicted criminal, a fraudster nonetheless, who’s “victim” was the same Treasury who are appealing one case involving the old club and liquidated it entirely over another. This is precisely the kind of “businessman” the fit and proper person test was supposed to weed out, and if the SFA holds its nose here the reek will stink out the halls at Hampden for decades. If King or the Easdale’s are judged fit and proper, then who exactly is the test for? What exactly do you have to do to fail it? How do we explain the existence of laws, when these are not applied?

Pascal says “Law without force is impotent.” The SFA’s weakness has allowed one version of Rangers to destroy itself, and has allowed an existential risk to another. If the next power at Rangers resides in South Africa or Greenock I can say with some certainty that the Association is engaged in an even more dangerous roll of the dice, because the surfacing of fresh scandal will be an ever present risk, and will be of the sort no-one will survive.

The damage to Scottish football will take years to heal. The Scottish game has been through enough trauma. It does not need more. It barely survived the last calamity to hit Rangers. The rest of us should not be forced to pay the price of the next one.

The greater damage will be done to Rangers itself. If the Green crisis ends in another collapse – as it well might; another administration event is a certainty, and another liquidation is a much more likely prospect than it was before 14 February 2012 – the club will once again have to start from the bottom, and this time the reputational damage will be impossible to repair. The club faces internal strife, sporting sanctions, and criminal investigations. The last takeover might be declared a fraud. the Whyte takeover will almost certainly be. The share issue might be invalid, as well as criminal, and the people involved may well end up in jail. Lawsuits could follow from investors, there could be as yet unknown consequences from the Upper Tier Tax Tribunal (thank you Brogan Rogan for pointing out what those might be) and a host of other issues.

Rangers fans must be the loudest voices here. How do you want the world to view your club in years to come? Do you want one to be proud of, or one forever associated with the shame and disgrace of these days gone by? The one which bailed out on its tax obligations. The one with supporters who disgrace your very name. The one which allowed Whyte and Green to take you to the cleaners and send you to the wall. The one which handed over control to one convicted criminal and another awaiting trial. Do you want to be reborn clean, or mired in the muck?

David Murray destroyed your financial stability. He made it so no bank would issue you a line of credit and no investor of note wanted to buy. Craig Whyte liquidated you. Charles Green has cast the future of the Newco into doubt and acted in a manner which has annihilated your credibility with the financial markets for decades to come.

Between these three men, they have taken everything from you, and the press and the people who run the game here, as well as some of your own blindly ignorant fans, have allowed them to do all this and more. Now they conspire to hand the keys to Ibrox to other men of questionable character, who will wreck further havoc on the reputation of the club.

The Scottish Football Association has damaged the game it was supposed to protect, but above all else their greatest failure of governance was a failure to protect one of its biggest clubs from its own excesses and those of its owners.

Rangers fans, the SFA have betrayed your trust, more than the trust of any other club. What you must insist on now is full disclosure and transparency from the powers that be in Hampden. The SFA has to end the charade of allowing your club to handle this in-house. They must hand everything over to an outside agency – whether a legal one, or a footballing body like UEFA – and they must demand co-operation and answers, and threaten to withhold the license if they don’t get them.

You must not be afraid of that. You must embrace it. The men with their hands on the gears at Ibrox are motivated by money, and nothing more. If the license is withdrawn their “investments” are worthless. They cannot risk that.

You must demand that the rules on fit and proper persons are applied, and where necessary even made stronger, to prevent your club falling into unclean hands. You must demand that they protect your reputation from further damage, by getting this all out there and acting accordingly, even if that means your club does not play football for at least a year.

You must be willing to suck it all up, knowing that what will emerge is a Rangers which has been cleansed and moves forward with honour, and dignity, led by custodians who treasure it rather than those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

The Rangers Standard has recently emerged as a genuine voice for those in your support who are sick and tired of what Rangers has become, and want it restored to something that is worthy of the love and respect in which you hold it. On that website, there are discussions about the kind of club you seek to be and about whether the institution of Rangers is about more than just football.

If that’s how you feel about it then you know it is about more than how many titles the club can claim, about more than just results on the park, about more than just the game. Rangers, like Celtic, is an idea. It has to be something you are proud of.

I am a socialist, but one with a fevered imagination and a tendency to write very dark things. This piece won’t have been good reading for some of you (perhaps all of you haha!) but I think there’s more hope in here than in other things I’ve written.

In spite of everything that’s come to pass, I still believe. I believe in Scottish football. I believe in our system of football governance, even if those who are working in it are failing on some level.

In society, as much as we strain against them, laws exist for our protection. To fail to enforce them is to leave us at the mercy of those elements who would do us harm. The rules of football ensure the protection of all clubs, not just a few.

The failure to enforce the rules has never had graver consequences than here in Scotland.  The irony is that bending and breaking them has hurt the one club those violations were designed to help. It cannot be allowed to happen again.

The rules must be applied without fear or favour.

The best must find their conviction, and their passionate intensity once more.

James is a co-editor of the On Fields of Green Blog http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

5,802 Comments so far

wottpiPosted on9:08 am - May 29, 2013


Exiled Celt (@The_Exiled_Celt) says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 03:28
17 0 i
Rate This
Nice article by Corsica1968 on Ally’s “charitable” journey to USA

http://alzipratu.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/is-ally-up-st-creek-without-a-paddle/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When I heard about the £10k target I too was a bit surprised how low it was (considering thwe travel costs etc) as recently I heard of a fundraising event for a boys sporting endevour that would have cost the parents more in petrol money to get the lads to the event than would have been raised by the event itself. While it would have been good to get the lads together the parents would have been as well just donating the petrol money to the cause directly.

An example of what is involved in the White Water Challenge is here from last years event
http://www.rangerscharity.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=400&Itemid=85

This year another fundraiser half way to his target of £5k on his Just Giving site states “I shall be joining Ally McCoist and a group of 3 others in a Rafting event” So thats 5 in the boat and lets say an average of £7.5k per man so a total of £37.5k.

Seems a long and costly way to get a relatively small sum, however many people get involved in such challenges, enjoy the experiecne and often keep going to raise cash for various charities when back at home.

View Comment

barcabhoyPosted on9:18 am - May 29, 2013


Given the serious and extensive nature of the claims made by Whyte and Earley, and the fact that Rangers are a public company, it is not going to be possible for anyone investigating this to dismiss out of hand.

Whyte has raised the bar considerably, and Green , Ahmad and Stockbridge are not going to be able to merely refuse to respond. Unless of course RIFC don’t intend to defend this action.

Stockbridge will struggle to survive this, which is not in the slightest undeserved given his despicable behaviour in filming Malcolm Murray. This is what happens when your club/business doesn’t attract winning bids from credible and respected individuals.

What a place to be now.

Equity holders who were ever only there to make a fast buck. An FD who behaves like a low rent paparazzi , A CEO who made PT Barnum look like a Trappist Monk , now replaced by a football agent !! A non exec board who either don’t have the requisite ability or are too busy engaged in trench warfare to provide leadership.

Don’t worry though…….help is at hand…..The Easdales are riding to the rescue !!

View Comment

tic6709Posted on9:35 am - May 29, 2013


barcabhoy Is this the sort of claim that is dealt with quickly ? or do you think this will be another long drawn out affair. I just wondered if Sevco can start next season with the assets in dispute.
Can the gates of the Big Hoose be padlocked until a decision is made .?

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on9:42 am - May 29, 2013


OT?.
Listening to R5 Live this morning.A company in Costa Rica are being done for money laundering.Seems this company have laundered circ $6billion.
Now we know that CW has connections to Costa Rica but $6b may be a bit big for him.
the name of the company in question:

“Liberty Reserves”.

Coincidence surely!

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on9:44 am - May 29, 2013


Exiledcelt –

I’ve emailed the Man U Foundation with a link to Corsica1968’s blog to keep them apprised that the RCF is continuing to take decisions apparently without the required number of trustees.

I am of course hoping they take action to preserve Man Utd’s reputation, as despite the need for charities to seek income it should come from a lawful source / process.I would hope that the MUF would publicly decline any income from RCF if they have any doubts as to RCF’s governance.

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on9:45 am - May 29, 2013


No doubt this comment is going to get lost in the extensive discussion on the Whyte LBC, however, I will make it anyway.

This morning I read the judgement of the disciplinary hearing of Dylan Hartley the England Hooker and Northampton Saints captain sent off in the Premiership Final for calling the referee a f***ing cheat.

He has been banned for 11 weeks and misses the British Lions tour to Australia.

In particular I would like to highlight this paragraph:

The panel undertook an assessment of the seriousness of the players‟ conduct. We accept that there was significant pressure on the Player as the captain of Northampton Saints during the Premiership final, but that does not excuse any disrespect or abuse of a match official. He had been warned a number of times about his attitude to the referee but he did not heed those warnings. Only a minute before this incident the referee had made it very clear to him that if he continued to talk in a particular way the referee would have to deal with it. Swearing at a match official is offensive in its own right, but challenging a referee‟s integrity by calling him a cheat exacerbates the offence. Referees have a very difficult job; some make mistakes; some have bad days when their officiating is poor. However, suggesting that the referee is a cheat, particularly in such an offensive manner – that is suggesting that the referee was making erroneous decisions for the benefit of one favoured side over another – represents an attack on an official‟s integrity. It undermines the core values of rugby. That is reprehensible and makes the offending more serious. Such behaviour requires a significant sanction to mark the Game‟s view that respect of match officials must never be undermined.

Football could learn a great deal from this approach to abuse of match officials.

For those that are interested the full judgement is here:

http://www.rfu.com/thegame/discipline/judgements/judgments-2012-2013/judgments-by-club/aviva-premiership/~/media/files/2013/discipline/judgments/28th%20may%20uploads/hartley%20northamptonsaints%20judgment%20may13.ashx

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:50 am - May 29, 2013


If, as I fully expect, everyone named in the LBC tells Whyte to get lost, then it will interesting to see whether he actually does lodge a claim with the court. On his past record, that seems unlikely, but he really has pushed the boat out this time, and will look a complete fool if he doesn’t either get paid off or go to court.

If he does take this to court, and his action is defended by RIFC etc, then this could rumble on for years. The lawyers must be salivating at the prospect.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on9:52 am - May 29, 2013


zerotolerance1903 says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 09:45

=================================================
Football could also learn from how quickly this matter was dealt with.Denying you a place on the Lions tour is probably the harshest punishment of all.
No offer of 2 game bans etc.Get it done.

View Comment

hangerheadPosted on9:53 am - May 29, 2013


http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/association=sco/news/newsid=1957647.html?

Champions: Celtic FC
With Rangers FC starting over again in Scottish football’s fourth tier, Celtic started the season as outright favourites to claim their 44th Scottish championship.

View Comment

zoylerPosted on9:57 am - May 29, 2013


If true that Whyte’s brief is being employed on a ‘no foal no fee’ basis – 1) he must feel they have a strong case 2) if there is no pay off they will have to go to court.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on10:00 am - May 29, 2013


neepheid says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 09:50

If, as I fully expect, everyone named in the LBC tells Whyte to get lost, then it will interesting to see whether he actually does lodge a claim with the court. On his past record, that seems unlikely, but he really has pushed the boat out this time, and will look a complete fool if he doesn’t either get paid off or go to court.

If he does take this to court, and his action is defended by RIFC etc, then this could rumble on for years. The lawyers must be salivating at the prospect.
==============================================
I think the problem for RIFC is can they:

A.Afford to pay CW to go away or
B.Afford the cost of fighting the case in the courts.

Should be an interesting board meeting today.

Will MM hold on?.
Will Stockbridge resign?
Will Walter walk?
Will another signing be announced?
Will Pincent mason deliver their report?.
Will anyone read Craigys letter?.

tune in next week………and the week after……..and the week after…………………………..etc.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on10:02 am - May 29, 2013


hangerhead says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 09:53

http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/association=sco/news/newsid=1957647.html?

Champions: Celtic FC
With Rangers FC starting over again in Scottish football’s fourth tier, Celtic started the season as outright favourites to claim their 44th Scottish championship.
========================================
Means nothing.
Mark Guidi says he’s got better things to do than check UEFA websites!

View Comment

tic6709Posted on10:02 am - May 29, 2013


neepheid says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 09:50

If, as I fully expect, everyone named in the LBC tells Whyte to get lost, then it will interesting to see whether he actually does lodge a claim with the court. On his past record, that seems unlikely, but he really has pushed the boat out this time, and will look a complete fool if he doesn’t either get paid off or go to court.

If he does take this to court, and his action is defended by RIFC etc, then this could rumble on for years. The lawyers must be salivating at the prospect.

===================================
That’s the reason for my question above, If it drags on can Sevco continue to operate from Ibrokes,or will they be forced to play elsewhere.

View Comment

Forres Dee (@ForresDee)Posted on10:03 am - May 29, 2013


Things down Dens way getting dicey, will try to provide an update for those interested after any official statements.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:17 am - May 29, 2013


neepheid says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 09:50

If, as I fully expect, everyone named in the LBC tells Whyte to get lost, then it will interesting to see whether he actually does lodge a claim with the court. On his past record, that seems unlikely, but he really has pushed the boat out this time, and will look a complete fool if he doesn’t either get paid off or go to court.

———————————-

Why would Craig Whtye not go to court? He has a £20m+ bill sitting on his desk from Ticketus. He is a spiv with nothing, and everything, to lose. A dangerous mix methinks. Again I go back to my previous comment. Green’s impact was to split the assets from the club. The two are no longer linked as such. One might just have to learn to live without the other!

I keep going back to last May/June also. Remember the two Bills were neck and neck with the BK’s then suddenly there was silence and completely out of the blue (see what I did there) comes this new guy with an unchallengeable right to what at that time was still a well fleshed carcass.

Me? I don’t think it will go to court actually. But they will need to buy him off, and it appears some bears, quite a lot in fact, don’t yet realise that funds is the thing they don’t have. They might also think twice about season books when the money is clearly being set aside for Whyte. They still don’t get where the original Ticketus money actually went!

Enter Mr King, stage left…

View Comment

barcabhoyPosted on10:32 am - May 29, 2013


The 330 pages of evidence will need to show that Green acted illegally in transferring the benefit from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland.

I am sure that establishing Whyte was involved in 5088 will be straightforward. I would doubt an expensive and eminent legal team would enter into a no win no fee arrangement , without having evidence that Green acted improperly with regards to 5088 benefit accruing to Sevco Scotland.

I doubt in fact they would agree to no win no fee at all

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:39 am - May 29, 2013


Barca,

I guess it will ride on who broke the law first. Green switched on Whyte illegally (he claims), but then Whyte should not have been there in the first place to be switched! (I’m obviously ignoring the SFA p!sh, but presumably anti-phoenix law would kick in here – something you would think Whyte would be pretty well clued up on, no?)

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on11:01 am - May 29, 2013


smugas says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 10:39

Barca,

I guess it will ride on who broke the law first. Green switched on Whyte illegally (he claims), but then Whyte should not have been there in the first place to be switched! (I’m obviously ignoring the SFA p!sh, but presumably anti-phoenix law would kick in here – something you would think Whyte would be pretty well clued up on, no?)
___________________________________________________________

Re phoenixing

According to wiki, the UK Attorney General has said:

It is perfectly legal to form a new company from the remains of a failed company. Any director of a failed company can become a director of a new company unless he or she is:
– subject to a disqualification order or undertaking;
– personally adjudged bankrupt;
– subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order or undertaking.

So, Craig Whyte would not be “breaking the law” by being involved. There are restricitions on being a director with the same name, etc but Sevco 5088 is not particularly similar to Rangers Football Club 😉

This an interesting summary regarding Phoenix companies:

http://payontime.co.uk/phoenix-companies-and-insolvent-trading-businesses

View Comment

scottyjimboPosted on11:03 am - May 29, 2013


barcabhoy says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 10:32

With today’s general reluctance for some people to pay their bills, perhaps a “no win, no fee” deal is perhaps the safer way for lawyers to proceed if they want paid. I am quite sure Mr Whyte, though, would settle any bills in a timely manner.

As the adverts usually say “We claim our costs from the other side”. That has to be safe, shirley?

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on11:17 am - May 29, 2013


smugas says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 10:39
_____

WIll phoenixing laws will apply in the narrow matter of the Green’s actions? Whyte is perfectly entitled to buy the remnants of RFC and pay the bills if HMRC come knocking.
Assuming HMRC wouldn’t like this and (allegedly) acting illegally to prevent this is still not a valid defense for Green’s actions unless he can prove what amounts to a big chain of virtually unproveable negatives. Even if he could only prove Whyte was breaking a law, that doesn’t entitle him to any proceeds from what would be an independently fraudulent action.
Green needs to defend the claims or the best he can do is hope to take Whyte down with him. In that case HMRC will end up owning Ibrox – and that’s the ball game for TRFC.

View Comment

100bjdPosted on11:38 am - May 29, 2013


barcabhoy says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 10:32

Quantcast
The 330 pages of evidence will need to show that Green acted illegally in transferring the benefit from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland.

I am sure that establishing Whyte was involved in 5088 will be straightforward. I would doubt an expensive and eminent legal team would enter into a no win no fee arrangement , without having evidence that Green acted improperly with regards to 5088 benefit accruing to Sevco Scotland.

I doubt in fact they would agree to no win no fee at all
————————————————————————————————————————-
Barca, I think the evidence will show that Whyte was a silent shareholder in Sevco 5088. How the 5088 binding agreement ended up in Sevco Scotland will be the key question. The other key issue is the no win no fee position of Whytes pretty useful lawyers. I am presuming that they will be underwritten by somebody like Elite Insurance who specialise in this area. This insurance is not easy to obtain so the insurers must also be very confident.
Big issues approaching here, not least the abilty for Rangers to fund ther defence plus the ability to fund a losing position which will, of course be hugely inflated by the insurance premium. Usually these premiums offer staged fee positions in that you pay less for an early settlement and fortunes if you lose at the last stage which would be a full blown and hugely expensive court case. Chico and Ahmad should have paid up at the time and now I would not like to be in their shoes. Whyte has just raised the bar significantly here!

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on11:41 am - May 29, 2013


Questions for the more legal minded:
If this does go to court, what will the format be? Will the lawyers be able to question CG, CW et al and go into their previous business activities? That could be lots of fun…
Will RIFC have representation there (separate from CG, IA and BS)?
What are the possible verdicts? Is it winner takes all or is there scope for a typical “Rangers style victory” where Green et al are found to have cheated Whyte, but get to keep their ill gotten gains minus a peppercorn fine?
Do the AIM have a responsibility to investigate anything other than a complete exoneration (including investigating any settlement).

View Comment

neepheidPosted on11:42 am - May 29, 2013


Tic 6709 says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 10:02

That’s the reason for my question above, If it drags on can Sevco continue to operate from Ibrokes,or will they be forced to play elsewhere.

+++++++++++++++
I suppose Whyte could apply for a court order to get Ibrox locked up pending the outcome of a full trial of the issues, but his evidence would need to be pretty strong for a judge to go that far, in my view.

It will come down in the end to whether Whyte can be paid off. If he needs £20m plus to settle with Ticketus, then he’ll have to go to court, because quite simply RIFC and TRFC don’t have that kind of money, or anything like it.

As someone else has pointed out, they can’t really afford to defend the action either. Which is a big, big problem for them. I’ll bet Green is now wishing he hadn’t stiffed Whyte. He would have done pretty well for himself by sticking to plan A, but he got greedy.

By the way, does anyone know whether they are actually taking money for season tickets at Ibrox? I went on their website, followed the link for buying season tickets, and got the message “No Season tickets are available”. I can’t believe that they have sold out already. If they aren’t selling tickets, and I can understand why might feel that legally they can’t, then the endgame is really upon us.

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on11:44 am - May 29, 2013


On the number of over-21 players Sevco are signing.

Maybe one of them will be the new groundsman instead…

View Comment

100bjdPosted on11:45 am - May 29, 2013


smugas says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 10:39

Quantcast
Barca,

I guess it will ride on who broke the law first. Green switched on Whyte illegally (he claims), but then Whyte should not have been there in the first place to be switched! (I’m obviously ignoring the SFA p!sh, but presumably anti-phoenix law would kick in here – something you would think Whyte would be pretty well clued up on, no?)
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Smugas,
Whyte was not illegally involved with Sevco 5088. Morals and the views of the SFA which I think post date Sevco 5088 do not matter in Company Law. He was entitled to be there.

View Comment

tic6709Posted on11:53 am - May 29, 2013


neepheid says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 11:42

Tic 6709 says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 10:02

That’s the reason for my question above, If it drags on can Sevco continue to operate from Ibrokes,or will they be forced to play elsewhere.

+++++++++++++++
I suppose Whyte could apply for a court order to get Ibrox locked up pending the outcome of a full trial of the issues, but his evidence would need to be pretty strong for a judge to go that far, in my view.

========================
Thanks neepheid.

View Comment

chipm0nkPosted on11:54 am - May 29, 2013


100njd

That is the real issue I think.

Duff and Phelps had this binding agreement with Sevco 5088. In my opinion that was suspect to begin with, how did it best serve the creditors in the event of a CVA failure, how could they possibly know that prior to the failure. Did they even consider breaking up the assets or was keeping “the business” going all that mattered, I certainly believe that.

However that agrement was put across as being almost sacrosanct. It was there, it was binding, nothing more to discuss.

However they then went through with the deal with an entirely different company. Yes it had a similar name but so what. It wasn’t even registered in the same country as far as I can remember.Clearly the use of such a similar name was to muddy the waters and subsequently talk about deals with Sevco, sale to Sevco, making it look like the same company. It wasn’t.

So who at Sevco 5088, Sevco Scotland and Duff & Phelps agreed this. Equally importantly under what authority did they do it and who didn’t know about it.

I think this will be very interesting to BDO, but that’s really just an aside just now.

View Comment

jerfeelgoodPosted on11:57 am - May 29, 2013


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/10084773/Rangers-allowed-to-play-pre-contract-signings-before-September-despite-transfer-embargo.html

So that puts an end to the signings debate……

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on11:59 am - May 29, 2013


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 09:42
————————————————–
I think you are wide of the mark here, TJB. Had the Record referred to CW in Nov 2011 as a multi-billionaire then there might be some merit in your suggestion but the fact they confirmed he was only a billionaire means no connection

View Comment

chipm0nkPosted on12:04 pm - May 29, 2013


neepheid says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 11:42

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

Re season tickets, I think they are still doing renewals and public sale will follow that.

View Comment

NawlitePosted on12:10 pm - May 29, 2013


jerfeelgood says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 11:57

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/10084773/Rangers-allowed-to-play-pre-contract-signings-before-September-despite-transfer-embargo.html

So that puts an end to the signings debate……
=====================================================================

What I don’t understand is how you can play someone as a trialist when you have already signed them. I know we had this last year with Ian Black, but it seems bizarre to me.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on12:13 pm - May 29, 2013


slimshady61 says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 11:59

0

0

Rate This

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 09:42
————————————————–
I think you are wide of the mark here, TJB. Had the Record referred to CW in Nov 2011 as a multi-billionaire then there might be some merit in your suggestion but the fact they confirmed he was only a billionaire means no connection
=======================================
I knew there’d be a flaw somewhere. :mrgreen:

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:13 pm - May 29, 2013


Guys Guys

Once again those who would be happy to see the club from Govan go down yet again put their faith in the lawyers.

Has history not told us that from the SPL’s Doncaster to the EBTs to the players registrations etc that the last ones to make common sense decisions in the face of overwhelming evidence of skullduggery is the lawyers and judges.

They continually can’t see the wood for the trees which is why people like Whyte and Green exist and like to develop symbiotic relationships that leads to a merry dance with the promise of everyone getting a big pay day from the aforementioned skullduggery.

The reality is that everyone and their uncle knows Whyte was involved in Sevco 5088. Green has admitted to shafting him. D&P said they had exclusive deal with Sevco 5088 but ended up selling to Sevco Scotland. Sevco Scotland became RFCL which then became part of RIFC plc.

We don’t really need to know anymore than that. Fans of T’Rangers should be forcing everyone sitting on the board and other high positions within the club to immediately resign so that a deep cleanse can commence. However due to the addiction that is following a football club we will just see this farce continue for years as the main players all hold on for that ever so distant big pay-day.

The reality is that in all the averice only a handful will walk away with decent amount of cash in hand and my guess is that its Green and Ahmad.

Given all these shysters at work I can’t really argue with ‘simple’ footballers and coaches taking a bite of the apple, good luck to them – take the money while it is being offered.

View Comment

TartawulverPosted on12:18 pm - May 29, 2013


jerfeelgood says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 11:57

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/10084773/Rangers-allowed-to-play-pre-contract-signings-before-September-despite-transfer-embargo.html

So that puts an end to the signings debate……
——————————————-
At least it has been clarified.

When is 1 September not 1 September? When it’s July or August of course.

Anyone want to buy some Scottish Football Association 2013 calendars? Going cheap because some of the months appear to have been misprinted and / or compiled in the wrong order!

View Comment

Forres Dee (@ForresDee)Posted on12:22 pm - May 29, 2013


Dens update:

http://bit.ly/ZdQLNk

The planned meeting on the 15th was postponed to discuss the investment, even though that wasn’t on the approved agenda.

The items on the agenda actually included motions of no confidence in the three remaining DFC/DFCSS directors.

The real takeover is by the fans reps, who incidentally have no cash to invest or any other investment planned!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:25 pm - May 29, 2013


I think the case for Whyte & Earley may hinge on the role of Simply Stockbroking, who it appeared from CF’s documents handled the funds from the initial investors. Did they receive funds on behalf of Sevco 5088 then mis-represent the situation to D&P as if the funds were raised by Sevco Scotland? Were D&P duped by Green and Ahmad or were they party to the background switch of ownership of the funds?

I still feel that there is a bit of the jigsaw missing, otherwise I think that Whyte would have been screaming from the rooftops much earlier than he has. Similarly, if Green and Ahmad were so confident of their positions, then they too would dismiss Whyte’s claims more vociferously. The missing piece is what happened around 12th-15th June. I think both sides have something to hide in that period and it may take a court case for it all to come out, which may not please either party.

View Comment

bluPosted on12:25 pm - May 29, 2013


nawlite says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 12:10
=====================================================================

What I don’t understand is how you can play someone as a trialist when you have already signed them. I know we had this last year with Ian Black, but it seems bizarre to me.

====================================================================
Just as curious is that during a signing embargo teams can play trialists that they’ve no intention of signing, which worked for Dundee after the 25 point deduction. May simply be pragmatism as referred to in the Telegraph article.

View Comment

johnnymancPosted on12:32 pm - May 29, 2013


jerfeelgood says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 11:57

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/10084773/Rangers-allowed-to-play-pre-contract-signings-before-September-despite-transfer-embargo.html

So that puts an end to the signings debate……
=====================================================================

What I don’t understand is how you can play someone as a trialist when you have already signed them. I know we had this last year with Ian Black, but it seems bizarre to me.
—————————————————————————–=
The discussion about Trialists is just a smokescreen to cover up the fact that they shouldn’t be able to make or play any new signings . The purpose of the embargo was clearly to prevent them from signing anyone for two transfer windows otherwise why not just state it as a 6 month ban.

Firstly they got to choose when it would come into force thereby allowing them a safeguard against not getting out of Div 3, now they realise they’ll be off the pace in Div 2 by next christmas without a stronger squad.

So this begs the questions, what exactly were the discussions involved in the ban? once Sevco had chosen it to apply after last summer’s window closed, did no-one bother to check dates accurately or was it another useful player registration oversight from Sandy Bryson?
Who were these people? oh yeah I forgot, we know one of them was a RFC Season Ticket holder.

So once again they get a helping hand to avoid about the only meaningful sanction that has so far been applied for offences “which were one stop short of match fixing” if i remember the judge’s quote correctly.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:33 pm - May 29, 2013


nawlite says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Re the playing of trialist and the registration embargo.

Looking at the Telegraph story am I then correct in saying that if there had been a scenario that T’Rangers had been struggling to win Div 3 with three games to play they could have taken on two highly talented ‘trialists’ and played them in those last three games?

Now of course the same could be said if it was Peterhead seeking to win the division over, say Elgin.

However surely the thrust of the embargo was punish the ‘club’ for a full year.

Due to the inability to think the whole situation through it appears that once again that minimal puishment has been applied being loopholes and jiggery pokery meant that the sentence started late and in effect finishes early and also had some room for manoeuvre in mid term.

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on12:34 pm - May 29, 2013


bayviewgold says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 07:40

ekt1m says:
Tuesday, May 28, 2013 at 22:59

Sorry, folks, I just noticed I got my Jambo’s mixed up. Apologies to Easy and Ally.

It’s “Easy” , “Ally” is the one at Greggs, sorry I’ll get my jaikit (apologies to the real ally jambo
________________________________________________

Sadly, lads, the Greggs fare down here in Englandshire is of even poorer quality than in Scotland. Not only are their pies etc mere imitations of the real thing, they don’t even have bridies, just these pathetic pasties. At least it keeps me out of their shops and I’m less like ‘Super Sized’ Ally than I might otherwise be. Still begs the question, why didn’t the super one stay at home to raise money for charity? I’m sure he could have raised many thousands in a sponsored Greggathon, or just done a ‘Guess My Weight’ fundraiser.
__________________

bayviewgold and ekt1m,

No problem with you confusing me with Easy – a compliment really, but please, just because I share a first name with ‘Charity’ McCoist, please don’t presume I frequent the same eateries 😉 (I do, but shhh…, keep it quiet from the wife)

View Comment

Forres Dee (@ForresDee)Posted on12:38 pm - May 29, 2013


wottpi says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 12:33
0 0 Rate This
nawlite says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Re the playing of trialist and the registration embargo.

Looking at the Telegraph story am I then correct in saying that if there had been a scenario that T’Rangers had been struggling to win Div 3 with three games to play they could have taken on two highly talented ‘trialists’ and played them in those last three games?

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

Trialists can’t be used after march, you could always try the Livi Kashloul route and sign amateurs payed as ‘consultants’

View Comment

verselijkfcPosted on12:46 pm - May 29, 2013


chipm0nk says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 11:54

The CVA Proposal was dated 29-May-12 – same date as Sevco Scotland Ltd was incorporated. From the Duff’n’Defer CVA proposal letter, section 4.23:
———————-
In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.
———————-

All references to Sevco in this document refer explicitly to Sevco 5088 Limited (section 4.17) however the key sentence is the last one.

Is it likely that the confidential agreement was in fact with Sevco Scotland in the event of the CVA failure, rather than Sevco 5088 Limited? I guess only BDO or perhaps Charlotte will be able to shed some light – it is still inexplicable in logic terms.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:47 pm - May 29, 2013


Meanwhile over at Planet RM folks are thinking who they could sign from the list of 97 SPL players now on frees

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/aberdeen/227250-the-99-spl-players-available-on-a-free-at-the-end-of-the-season/?

But still no recognition or acknowledgement of the over 21s rule.

Maybe Sandy Bryson has an as yet unknown loophole for that one as well?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:49 pm - May 29, 2013


Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 12:38

No trialists after March

Message received and understood.

Every day is an education – thanks

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:53 pm - May 29, 2013


Seems Phil Mac has had sight of this mornings document as well

Phil MacGiollaBhain ‏@Pmacgiollabhain 2h
@NickPLittlewood @alextomo I have sight of the documentation-so I know that it is genuine and a great scoop.The saga continues…

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on12:56 pm - May 29, 2013


zerotolerance1903 says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 09:45

‘We accept that there was significant pressure on the Player as the captain of Northampton Saints during the Premiership final, but that does not excuse any disrespect or abuse of a match official.’
——————–
Compare the RFU’s significant action with, even when making allowances for the pressured circumstances, with the (in)action by the SFA over Green’s cool and calculated ‘bigotry’ slur on themselves. One of those bodies must be seriously misguided, incompetent or biased – or perhaps all these things!

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on1:00 pm - May 29, 2013


easyJambo says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 12:25

I still feel that there is a bit of the jigsaw missing, otherwise I think that Whyte would have been screaming from the rooftops much earlier than he has. Similarly, if Green and Ahmad were so confident of their positions, then they too would dismiss Whyte’s claims more vociferously. The missing piece is what happened around 12th-15th June. I think both sides have something to hide in that period and it may take a court case for it all to come out, which may not please either party.

______________________________________________________________________

Yes – the period in which the assets moved from Sevco5088 to Sevco Scotland. My suspicion is that the contract to sell to Sevco5088 was novated in favour of Sevco Scotland and by doing that it would not be necessary for Sevco Scotland to buy the assets and be in a position where it owed Sevco5088 for them. That way there would be no untidy intercompany balances to deal with. There are smaller balances involving Green & Ahmed that are mentioned in the flotation prospectus which were moved across to Sevco Scotland.

As far as D&P would be concerned a sale was a sale and if it was to the same parties they had an agreement with who were telling them it would be better or necessary(?)if a Scottish company was used then why would they care?

View Comment

bluPosted on1:01 pm - May 29, 2013


johnnymanc says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 12:32
===================================================
I’m sure that the signing embargo and trialist rules weren’t contructed with RFC in mind. They were always full of holes, which have been exploited by others. Could RFC have played McCoist, McDowall, Durrant and Green during the 2012-13 season?

Wottpi –
122.2 Trialists, in accordance with the terms of this Rule and Rule 123
(Transfer/Temporary Transfer of Registration During Currency of Contract),
may not play or be listed as a substitute in any Championship match after
31st March in any season except with the prior consent of the Board.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on1:05 pm - May 29, 2013


Charlotte Fakeovers ‏@CharlotteFakes 5m

LBA from Craig Whyte appears to be a very significant step. It’s his first major move. The December 2012 letter was issued by Aidan Earley.

View Comment

tic6709Posted on1:09 pm - May 29, 2013


Three directors quit Dundee board after yank consortium withdraws bid to buy club. sky news.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on1:10 pm - May 29, 2013


blu says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 13:01

“……after31st March in any season EXCEPT with the prior consent of the Board.”

So even when I was wrong I was right 🙂

View Comment

tomtomPosted on1:19 pm - May 29, 2013


Re the trialist issue. You can bet your mortgage that TRFC have been getting advice on this from their friends at the SFA. There is no way they would have went ahead with any of these “signings” without guidance from above.

Why should any of us be surprised at any of this.

View Comment

100bjdPosted on1:22 pm - May 29, 2013


easyJambo says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 12:25

Quantcast
I think the case for Whyte & Earley may hinge on the role of Simply Stockbroking, who it appeared from CF’s documents handled the funds from the initial investors. Did they receive funds on behalf of Sevco 5088 then mis-represent the situation to D&P as if the funds were raised by Sevco Scotland? Were D&P duped by Green and Ahmad or were they party to the background switch of ownership of the funds?
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Easy,
I have covered this point a few times. Let me summarise that Simply Stockbroking is wholly owned by Imran Ahmad’s friend and long time employer/partner John Patrick Brennan.

“Imran left Hoodless Brennan to form Allenby Capital and had 80% of the share capital having invested £200k. He was quoted at the time as “wanting to do things differently”. A fair enough comment given the reputation of twice FSA fined Hoodless Brennan. So I thought I would have a look at the Allenby portfolio and measure its success. Firstly however I was interested why Imran had sold his company. Companies house now reveals the two new joint owners of Allenby as being HB Markets PLC and Appleby Trust Jersey……..HB is short for Hoodless Brennan….. revealed yesterday that Mr John Patrick Brennan who is the major equity holder in Simply Stockbrokers who are handling Rangers internet share dealing. I conclude therefore that Imran and Hoodless Brennan are still associated and working with each other.”

I made the point again recently as a result of Charlottes disclosures.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on1:25 pm - May 29, 2013


barcabhoy says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 10:32
24 0 Rate This

… I would doubt an expensive and eminent legal team would enter into a no win no fee arrangement , without having evidence that Green acted improperly with regards to 5088 benefit accruing to Sevco Scotland.

I doubt in fact they would agree to no win no fee at all.
————

@CharlotteFakes
@tonybhoy610 Not a chance the top guys are working on a no win, no fee. This is very expensive action funded by the markets #HowMuchToDefend

So where did the ‘no win, no fee’ rumour come from anyway? Miss Fakes says ‘not a chance’. But what does ‘funded by the markets mean’?

Could this be funded by people who hope to acquire the assets from Whyte further down the road, if a legal challenge is successful?

View Comment

100bjdPosted on1:30 pm - May 29, 2013


bogsdollox says:

Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 13:00

Quantcast
easyJambo says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 12:25

I still feel that there is a bit of the jigsaw missing, otherwise I think that Whyte would have been screaming from the rooftops much earlier than he has. Similarly, if Green and Ahmad were so confident of their positions, then they too would dismiss Whyte’s claims more vociferously. The missing piece is what happened around 12th-15th June. I think both sides have something to hide in that period and it may take a court case for it all to come out, which may not please either party.

______________________________________________________________________

Yes – the period in which the assets moved from Sevco5088 to Sevco Scotland. My suspicion is that the contract to sell to Sevco5088 was novated in favour of Sevco Scotland and by doing that it would not be necessary for Sevco Scotland to buy the assets and be in a position where it owed Sevco5088 for them. That way there would be no untidy intercompany balances to deal with. There are smaller balances involving Green & Ahmed that are mentioned in the flotation prospectus which were moved across to Sevco Scotland.

As far as D&P would be concerned a sale was a sale and if it was to the same parties they had an agreement with who were telling them it would be better or necessary(?)if a Scottish company was used then why would they care?
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Yes novation is not a bad shout…….so where is the document and who signed it. Of course the answer will be Chico as sole director and shareholder of Sevco 5088. I think this whytes point. Did Chico sign knowing that Whyte had an interest and therefore needed his signature/shareholding or was there a side letter that kept Whyte out the picture although not out the deal. This theory would explain why the Duffers have been so quiet….they saw appropriate documentation!

View Comment

The CEPosted on1:32 pm - May 29, 2013


http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-heavy-nudge/#more-35083

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on1:50 pm - May 29, 2013


This is what i don’t get…..Jon Daly is a registered player, registered to play for Dundee united right now.

once his contract ends, he is no longer a dundee united player, but is STILL registered with the SFA – hence the reason he can play as a trialist, as he is already registered in Scotland. If he was at an English team, it would require international clearance, so can’t happen

Does that mean that he will be playing for Sevco as a Dundee United player?

I’m struggling to understand this registration issue – appears it doesn’t matter what TEAM you are employed by, so long as you are registered.

Does that mean, for example, Celtic could have a player signed and registered but then he could simply play as a trialist for Hibs one week, aberdeen the next, Dundee united the week after?

put it like this, could celtic let their players play for other teams every week against their closest league rivals and it wouldn’t be a problem?

(no, i didn’t think so!)

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on1:59 pm - May 29, 2013


I am not a betting man but if I was to have a flutter then below is ideal man.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKpB8Jz_fLRM&ei=svqlUeTRBYeW0AW5qYGgCA&usg=AFQjCNEm81e7QZwToG4Lpu2oMp2fHQC1rg&sig2=-cbEp2n67WWdIWo2_n-J1g

View Comment

Forres Dee (@ForresDee)Posted on2:11 pm - May 29, 2013


DFC – Once again a shambles!

View Comment

NawlitePosted on2:16 pm - May 29, 2013


But isn’t a ‘trialist’ supposed to be someone you’re ‘trying out’ to see if he is good enough before you sign him? An unregistered player is very different from a trialist, so why is the SFL guy fudging the issue by talking about ‘unregistered players’ being allowed to play. The rule, as I understand it, is about trialists.

Why do we keep seeing people playing with words to create loopholes? I know there are bigger issues currently, but this constant facilitation just annoys me!!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on2:19 pm - May 29, 2013


Danish Pastry says: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 13:25

So where did the ‘no win, no fee’ rumour come from anyway? Miss Fakes says ‘not a chance’. But what does ‘funded by the markets mean’?
============================
The initial info came from a “Worthington Group” announcement to the LSE

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11561457

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on2:19 pm - May 29, 2013


tomtomaswell says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 13:19

Re the trialist issue. You can bet your mortgage that TRFC have been getting advice on this from their friends at the SFA. There is no way they would have went ahead with any of these “signings” without guidance from above.

Why should any of us be surprised at any of this.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I understand what is behind your post but surely it is perfectly reasonable for a club to approach the SFA for a “ruling/advice” before doing something because as the governing body they interpret the rules?

View Comment

Peter DPosted on2:28 pm - May 29, 2013


Re: The Rangers player registration ban….

I just dug up a report from back at the time the original SFA judicial panel ruled :

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/football/rangers-takeover-only-match-fixing-a-more-serious-breach-1-2290541

Here are a few choice quotes that jump out…

“The Scottish Football Association judicial panel that handed Rangers a 12-month transfer embargo judged the club’s rule breaches second only to match-fixing in their seriousness.”

“Rangers were also fined £160,000 after being found guilty of five charges relating to their financial affairs and the appointment of Craig Whyte as chairman. Rangers claimed they should not be held responsible for the actions of Whyte, but that defence was dismissed as having no legal basis given the established principle of corporate liability.”

“Furthermore, the panel concluded that directors and senior managers should have publicly raised concerns over the actions of Whyte, who presided over the non-payment of £13million in tax between May last year and February 14, when the club went into administration”

“The report noted Rangers felt they had been “duped and cheated by a director who had made false representations”. However, the panel felt directors and senior managers were “entirely aware” Whyte was engaged in a deliberate programme of non-payment of taxes and non-co-operation with auditors. They added that director Dave King “appears to have done little” about his exclusion from governance except repeat demands for information”

“The tribunal felt a 12-month embargo on registering players aged over 17 was just punishment.”

And perhaps best of all…..

“Rangers manager Ally McCoist had controversially called for the original panel to be named, despite the club knowing their identities. Yesterday he said: “We just want transparency and clarity and I’m delighted that the appeals panel has been named.””

…hmm ……

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on2:29 pm - May 29, 2013


can a club ask to have a former registered player “de-registered?”

I.e. if a players contract expires and they leave that club – can they ask the SFA that the player is deregistered meaning that the players new club would have to register him again (if they could….of course)

or does the player remain registered FOREVER until they register elsewhere….does this mean all retired footballers are STILL registered?

View Comment

The CEPosted on2:33 pm - May 29, 2013


Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 14:11
0 0 Rate This

DFC – Once again a shambles!

——————————————————————————————————

To be fair FD, if this is everyone associated with the hostile takeover throwing their toys out the pram because their bid has been scunnered, then I think this may be good news for DFC.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on2:36 pm - May 29, 2013


Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 14:11

DFC – Once again a shambles!
=============================
FD – I’m not fully up to speed with the situation at Dundee. I’m aware of the resignations today following the withdrawal of the American bid, although I’m not familiar with the details of what was on offer.

However, the point I’d make is that it is a very difficult decision for “fan owned” clubs to turn down offers of substantial investment in the club when, more than anything else, all that fans want is to see a successful team on the pitch. You would have to very principled behind the concept of fan ownership to reject something that would help the team

I see such a quandary ahead for Hearts fans, with the Foundation of Hearts representing the fans groups, but without the financial muscle to make the necessary investment to purchase the club and supply sufficient working capital to get through the first season. Waiting in the wings (possibly for an insolvency event?) are other investors (Massone and a Scandinavian group) who do appear to have funds available up front.

So what do the fans do? Back the FoH to implement fan ownership, but may compromise the quality of the team on the park, or support an external investor who may have different aims for the club (and themselves)?

View Comment

Forres Dee (@ForresDee)Posted on3:02 pm - May 29, 2013


The CE says,

More to it than that, DFCSS has the mandate to accept investment (they lost that vote twice).
It would however mean that two or all three current DFCSS directors give up the associated privileges. To some within DFCSS finishing above Stirling Albion in the Supporters Direct league is more important than a vibrant DFC.

easyJambo,

BE VERY CAREFUL, that you don’t end up giving power to jumped up bus conveners who are more interested in a monday night pub quiz than investment at the club they are supposed to run.

i was vert sceptical about the investment at first, but the DFCSS mealy mouthing has me furious, they have delayed this as long as possible. They have also delayed a previous arranged SGM(EGM) due to the investment, despite the investment not being on the formal agenda.

The three main items that were on the agenda, were motions of no confidence in these three individuals. These three have never been subjected to a public vote, all being co-opted by the board of DFCSS to their positions.

View Comment

TaysiderPosted on3:12 pm - May 29, 2013


Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 14:11

DFC – Once again a shambles!

easyJambo says:
Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 14:36
============================
The dilemma surely is how do the DFCSS (DFC Supporters Society) that would need to give consent to fans shares being sold to the Texan Investors get the assurance required that this is not another Calum Melville situation? That all started with the best of intentions, finances invested in the club and ended in Admin 2.

I wrote on here recently about the lack of transparency that adversely impacts Scottish Football. Sure, sometimes you need some secrecy, short term, to make business work but just as Ibrox club fans will wonde about all the smoke that surrounds the running of their club and all of us wondering who has right on their side in the Restructuring saga, so with DFC again there is a lack of factual information.

It doesn’t seem unreasonable to question why a bunch of people thousands of miles from the club are so interested in investing, nor why the timescale is so tight as to make it difficult for a timely due diligence process. Not saying either side are right but as a bemused supporter, how do you begin to establish who to trust?

Jut as an aside, but notwithstanding rivalry in Dundee, I’d like to see DFC back in the top flight. Aberdeen supporters miss out with no opportunity to savour the atmosphere of a genuine city derby. I realise that Glaswegian posters here will feel the same way and mighty relieved to see Partick Thistle back in the SPL! 🙂

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on3:13 pm - May 29, 2013


@CharlotteFakes up and tweeting again – she is suggesting that CW determined to go to Court, this is a serious play.

The Out of Court settlement is in the millions – does not look as if the TGEF is going to do walking away.

Gordon‏@Gri6427m
@CharlotteFakes Hahahaha Richard Beresford not cheap? Hahahahaha

Charlotte Fakeovers‏@CharlotteFakes19m
@Gri64 Check Legal reps 1, 2 and 3 and stop glossing over the bad news. Richard has also been paid, I’ve got the contract. #HeadInSandAgain

Gordon‏@Gri6417m
@CharlotteFakes Merchant legal Richard?

Charlotte Fakeovers‏@CharlotteFakes15m
@Gri64 Redress your earlier quote regarding ‘cheap’ and I’ll consider discussing. However it’s bad news, so you might prefer not to.

Gordon‏@Gri6413m
@CharlotteFakes Have you heard the conversation with Richard asking for a settlement to make it all go away? Thought not!

Charlotte Fakeovers‏@CharlotteFakes10m
@Gri64 So misinformed and clutching at straws. I have the out of court figure. Think Millions, Many Millions. #CourtBattleLooms #Deflections

View Comment

sanoffymessssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on3:17 pm - May 29, 2013


Since reading the article in The Telegraph this morning I have been reading and trying to understand the SFL Constitution & Rules and how these interact with The SFA Handbook – Registration Procedures and Judicial Panel Protocols that govern Disciplinary Sanctions.

As I am no expert on such matters just an ordinary fan, you can imagine how “ma heid’s still spinnin!”

However, my layman’s attempts to clarify questions raised by other posters will follow in separate posts for the avoidance of any unintended confusion on my part.

View Comment

sanoffymessssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on3:22 pm - May 29, 2013


1. nawlite says: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 at 14:16
But isn’t a ‘trialist’ supposed to be someone you’re ‘trying out’ to see if he is good enough before you sign him? An unregistered player is very different from a trialist, so why is the SFL guy fudging the issue by talking about ‘unregistered players’ being allowed to play. The rule, as I understand it, is about trialists.
Why do we keep seeing people playing with words to create loopholes? I know there are bigger issues currently, but this constant facilitation just annoys me!!
___________________________________

Nawlite the idea that the rule is about trialists would just be too simple for our rule makers!

The Rule on which the SFL and SFA appear to rely upon is SFL Rule 122 which states:

122. PLAYING OF PLAYERS WITHOUT REGISTRATION

No more than two Trialists from any grade of football may be allowed to play, or be listed as a substitute for any club in any Championship match up to and including 31st March in any season.

122.1 Each Trialist may be allowed to play in, or be listed as a substitute for, a maximum of three games for any one club, provided he is otherwise eligible to do so. Clubs playing a player in these circumstances must indicate the fact by adding the words “not registered” after such player’s name and address, place and date of birth, previous club, and the country in which he last played, in the list of players in their Report of Result of the game.

View Comment

The CEPosted on3:24 pm - May 29, 2013


FD,

As a somewhat uninformed outsider I may be wrong, but what I can can gather from DFCSS is it appears that the Texans gave the board X amount of days to agree to the deal, knowing fine well that DFCSS need Y amount of days to fulfill their requirement to their members. Seeing as the deal has been secretly formulated over 13 months (or however long) , it would have been quite simple to have ensured they had the appropriate length of time to consult its members.

The simple reason they didn’t, can only be that they are hiding something and trying to rush it through. Its no coincidence that the Texans timescale didn’t match DFCSS’s.

Every Scottish club should be extremely wary of mysterious outsider investment and the correct decision has been reached IMHO.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on3:28 pm - May 29, 2013


122.1 Each Trialist may be allowed to play in, or be listed as a substitute for, a maximum of three games for any one club, provided he is otherwise eligible to do so. Clubs playing a player in these circumstances must indicate the fact by adding the words “not registered” after such player’s name and address, place and date of birth, previous club, and the country in which he last played, in the list of players in their Report of Result of the game.

———————–

didn’t sandy bryson state that these players were ALREADY registered to play in scotland though?

so, how can they be NOT REGISTERED?

View Comment

The CEPosted on3:28 pm - May 29, 2013


And as we learned in the reconstruction debacle, anyone promoting a take-it-or-leave-it or now-or-never proposal is invariably negotiating in bad faith.

If DFC are a good investment today, surely they’ll still be a good investment in 2 months time?

View Comment

The CEPosted on3:32 pm - May 29, 2013


[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcwYfwteshU&w=640&h=390%5D

Seems fair enough to me, and glad to hear DFC’s previous brushes with liquidation are in their minds.

View Comment

Comments are closed.