The Real Battle Begins?

Avatar By

TW (@tartanwulver) says: Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 11:35 and p78 …

Comment on The Real Battle Begins? by goosy.

TW (@tartanwulver) says:
Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 11:35
and p78 ditto for ‘We have not had sight of an Asbestos Risk Assessment relative to the subjects and cannot report that they are free from risk in this respect. Accordingly, we have made the assumption that such an investigation would not disclose the presence of any such material in any adverse situation or condition.’
…………
TW
Very interesting………
Green may have shot himself in the foot for the sake of a couple of £m
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Owners of buildings built before 2000 have a duty to manage the presence of Asbestos under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012
See
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg223.pdf

The presence of asbestos is something you either know from the construction specifications or you discover it from statutory records like an ARA report
Clearly the Surveyor has covered himself by making no provision for asbestos in his valuation

The real issue however is
Why?
Why was the Surveyor not given access to the most recent Asbestos Risk Assessment for Ibrox?

RFC revealed in Dec 2010 that asbestos was found in the Main Stand during repair of burst pipes. The next match due to be played was in doubt until RFC satisfied Strathclyde Police that there was no risk to people using the Main Stand.

Make no mistake

This decision could ONLY have been taken following an Asbestos Risk Assessment by properly qualified Assessors in Dec 2010

Without this ARA report, Strathclyde Police would be legally compromised by giving the go ahead. for the Main Stand to be used for football purposes

So there is at least one ARA in existence from Dec 2010 It will have been carried out by MIM possibly using an external Surveyor
Craig Whyte, Duff and Phelps and the current legal owner of Ibrox were all legally obliged to keep this record on file and provide HSE with access to it on demand

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Implications

Think about this in the context of selling your house

It is not a minor matter for a Surveyor to discount the known presence of asbestos when valuing a property. It is a grave matter to do so when the Surveyor knew the property was the subject of an Asbestos Risk Assessment in the past 2 yrs.
The Surveyor is clearly aware that an Asbestos Risk Assessment was carried out. As professionals he should have requested sight of this report If so it appears the request was refused
By continuing with the valuation the Surveyor ends up with a meaningless valuation that would be unacceptable to any potential purchaser
At worse the presence of asbestos could cause the Main Stand to be permanently closed or even demolished. At best an annual ARA would be carried out and accruals made in the accounts for remedial works to be done at some future date
However in the context of the Prospectus it is extremely useful to ignore the known presence of asbestos in the Main Stand
It means that no provision is made anywhere in the Prospectus for either the capital or the on-going revenue cost associated with the presence of asbestos in the Main Stand

goosy Also Commented

The Real Battle Begins?
Humble Pie says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 02:46
‘Cognitive Dissonance’ is that feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If I had a history i wanted to keep I would want fans of other clubs to recognise it
Otherwise its pointless
Cognitive dissonance at its simplest


The Real Battle Begins?
bogsdollox says:
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 15:55
The Prospectus talks about TRFC being acquired by RIFC in a share for share exchange. If TRFC has a holding company already then on the share exchange the existing Holdco will become a substantial shareholder in RIFC and should be easy to spot from the shareholder register. If nominees are used then some detective work will be required.
I too remain suspicious that TU/Whyte et al are not out of the picture.
,,,,,,,

I stand corrected by honourable Accountant posters reading below
But
I think this is what may have happened
1. RFC assets move from D&P to Sevco 5088 and then to (let’s say Sevco1872) together with floating charges over these assets held by CW, and Close Leasing. A separate deal is done moving all the Ticketus debt to Sevco 1872. This excludes Ticketus debt becoming due in July 2012.
2. Sevco 1872 renegotiate the CW and Close Leasing floating charges to a lower figure but agree that they will not net off one against the other until a later date. This avoids RFC (IL) having to report to Companies House that these FCs have been satisfied and raising doubts over the asset sale agreement.
3. Sevco1872 immediately transfer the RFC assets to Sevco Scotland together with the SSC charge over MP. However Sevco1872 continue to hold the CW and CL floating charges (still to be netted off) on their books. Thus TRFC is debt free but its holding Co Sevco 1872 owes a bundle to CW, Close Leasing and Ticketus
4. Sevco1872 award its investors shares in Sevco Scotland (later TRFC) on a one for one basis for nothing or a nominal sum (say £1)
Pre flotation we thus have a situation whereby
The Green Consortium own TRFC and RFC assets in the same proportion as they own Sevco1872
The Green Consortium via Sevco1872 has net debts to CW, Close Leasing and Ticketus
5. RIFC is floated on AIM and immediately buy all shares in TRFC(which were originally shares in Sevco1872 that were swopped for TRFC shares)The price paid is higher than the Green Consortium paid for RFC assets (which was around £2.75m after deductions for loss of transfer fees).This brings a paper profit to the Green consortium which can be realised immediately by selling shares if some legal means can be found…..Spivs will know how)The share sale will cause the price to fall through Jan 2013
6. The End Game
Either
CW, Close Leasing and Ticketus are paid off during the fund raising with shares in RIFC via nominees to hide their identity.
and/or
TRFC is offered for sale by RIFC with a declared debt to 3rd parties to be repaid over x years
The sale of TRFC gives a second bite at the cherry for any members of the Green Consortium who haven’t managed to dump their RIFC shares on the AIM market before TRFC are sold
The Final Sale of TRFC
Either
Minty returns to pump at least £40m into backing RFC to restore former glory and hold onto his knighthood
Or
TRFC are sold for around £10m to genuine Bears willing to fight for a top 6 place with limited prospects of CL football until at least season 2019- 2020


The Real Battle Begins?
Nope
Something smells here and it ain`t roses

This is what smells

Why create a holding co for TRFC Ltd if the sole purpose was to launch TRFC on AIM?

This launch would have required TRFC Ltd to change its name to TRFC plc hus having the exact same name as the Co sold by Minty for £1
The cover story for floating a holding co instead of TRFC is that it facilitates RIFC being considered as a tax free investment under HMRC rules
However
I think there is a much more important reason
i.e.
The name TRFC plc has been earmarked for the real floatation of TRFC Ltd at some early future date
Does anything else smell?
Yep
The whole floatation is a con designed to wipe its face in cost terms and maybe even make some money from the Gullible
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Here`s my take on this phoney flotation

This RIFC share issue had one Spiv purpose and one Spiv purpose only

To place a new legal holding company above the assets of the liquidated RFC
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The share issue is phoney because

It is not offerring shares in TRFC

It has a ridiculous share price

It has misleading claims in its Prospectus

It is being launched on the worse date of the year for an IPO
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

So why place a holding Co above the assets of TRFC?

Because TRFC already has a holding co which will sell TRFC to RIFC after the floatation

But
The name of the existing holding company for TRFC cannot be disclosed

Why can`t that name be disclosed?
Because a quick search of Companies House would reveal that it carries floating charges over its only asset ,TRFC Ltd
Floating charges that were agreed as the price of getting Ticketus, Close Leasing and CW support for the sale of assets and RFC giving up the name “The Rangers Football Club plc” This enabled Sevco Scotland to be renamed “The Rangers Football Club Ltd” and guranteed its name could be changed to “The Rangers Football Club plc” when it is floated on AIM at some future date
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The process looking forward?

I reckon
The share issue will flop but the goal will be achieved i.e. A holding co will be placed above TRFC which can do things in private without the publicity TRFC attract
The Gullible will contribute enough to clear the expenses
The institutional investors will buy in at a single figure share price
The Consortium will find legal ways to dump their shares at a profit

The Not So Gullible will await the real share floatationTheir goal is to get real shares in a newTRFC plc
TRFC will be offerred for sale by RIFC once the league situation has been resolved

Some form of deal will be struck to accommodate debts due to Ticketus, Close Leasing and Whyte.These debts will not be for the full amounts declared in the original Creditors List
.But they will still yield a healthy return


Recent Comments by goosy

Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
BIG PINK
JULY 28, 2017 at 11:42
 
I really think that the SFSA could – and should – grasp an opportunity like the SPFL statement to assume a moral leadership of fans of Scottish football. I’m not sure what it is they hope to provide in terms of moral authority if they are not fearless enough to address directly the biggest and still evolving scandal the game has seen. I am hoping that like Celtic, they are taking time to respond. The question is, how can they ignore it?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
BP
IMO
Its not all that difficult
.At their next  Board meeting the current SFSA Board should vote on whether they are prepared to make upholding sporting integrity the prime goal of their Mission Statement. All other goals will be subservient to this aim. Key Performance Indicators should then be developed to measure whether the governing bodies are upholding integrity going forward. Regular reports should be emailed to members when, as we expect corruption continues to be manifest in mismanagement of current rules and the law of the land. However The SFSA should avoid public involvement  on any topic until they have a fully functioning  democratically elected Board comprised of Fan Directors.
The focus on integrity should   automatically make resolving corruption the number one goal for the immediate term. It would enable an umbrella coalition to be established  between the SFSA and  other groups solely responsible for pursuing the Judicial Review route. The idea would be that the SFSA address an d measure progress on long term implications of removing the elephant while the rest of the coalition get on with shoving it out the window
Steps should be taken immediately to introduce democracy to SFSA using as a voter roll the names of all those for whom they have email addresses. Groups claiming to represent many unnamed members should be charged with adding them to the email voters roll by a target cut off date. The election of Fan Shadow Directors to overlap with the current Board should proceed on a democratic basis shortly after the cut off date. Whether this is  by direct election or through some temporary representative body should be thought through and voted on by email.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The views of the Celtic Board are no longer relevant
They had the opportunity to stand up and be counted .Instead they cooperated by their silence in a disgraceful, unethical and shameless strategy. Their focus now should be removing Bro Walfrids Statue from Celtic Park before it falls over in shame


Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
AULDHEIDJULY 27, 2017 at 22:11
Goosey GooseyWhen there is 0% chance of opening the door, 20% is worth backing.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Like I said
I`ve yet to meet the person with 80% integrity
Or put another way
I don`t trust people who have proven untrustworthy on an integrity issue on even one occasion 
Sometimes I have no choice but to put my fate in their hands 
Some worked out. Some didn`t work out
But because I had no choice I went along with it unwillingly
However
That wasn`t trust. It was Hobsons choice
When I have the choice not to trust them because there are other options 
I don`t trust them and go for an alternative
Having said that
Its a free country (apart from what we both agree on)
So
People may put their trust in SFAS using whatever criteria they deem most important 
For me when dealing with corruption there is zero room for compromise.
Its  an issue of integrity, right or wrong ,good or evil, black or white
I won`t  trust SFAS
So as I said before
I`m out


Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
AULDHEIDJULY 27, 2017 at 21:32 goosygoosyJuly 27, 2017 at 20:38 (Edit)
Read my post about capacity building. Have you anything better to suggest be done in their place? Are you going to do the work those volunteers do or are you happy just to snoop and snipe?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Auldheid
i have great respect for you and your track record in opposing corruption
I am too long in the tooth now to believe platitudes without checking the facts. I  am happy to contribute to a crowd funding initiative seeking a JR of the corruption associated with the recent past
I`m not snowed either by face to face meetings with people who have proven they lack integrity.
Thats a virtue you either have or you don`t have

I`ve yet to meet the person with 80% integrity
So as far as SFAS are concerned
I`m out


Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
Oh Dear as PMG might say
I fear I may have tripped over a can of worms in my previous post at 14.56
Thinking back to the sterling work done by the combined efforts of talented posters on the RTC Blog
I thought it might be fun to have a look at SFSA in a bit more detail
Current Office address 4 Woodside Pl, Glasgow G3 7QL
Interestingly
 If you Google Earth this address and postcode there`s a man walking along the pavement who looks awfully like a member of the SPFL. Can`t be sure of course  as faces are blurred with Google Earth but the odd way of walking seems familiar.
It was enough to pique my curiosity so I had a look elsewhere on the web
Lo and behold
Up comes the following
SFSA
Official Launch early April 2015
BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/32229672
“The SFSA, which says it has reached 40,000 pledges of support from Scottish fans’ groups at club level, will include a national advisory group.
It will contain experts on football and governance matters, including former First Minister Henry McLeish and Maureen McGonigle, founder of Scottish Women in Sport, and from academia and the business world.
They will work with a football advisory group that so far includes fans from Aberdeen, Ayr United, Celtic, Dumbarton, Hearts and Rangers”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Question
Does 40,000 pledges of support from a Club Group mean every member of that Club has registered an email address with SFSA?
Or does it mean one person from each supporters group registered on behalf of their members with or without their consent? Does this explain why the SFSA had 40000  members before it was launched ?
Question
“Whereabouts on the current website can you find the names of the fans on the Advisory Group from Aberdeen, Ayr United, Celtic, Dumbarton, Hearts and Rangers”
And
Why are members of the Advisory Group selected by the unelected CEO and Chairman of the SFSA Board and not elected by the members?
 
The Fans’ Manifesto
Fans want change
Scottish football needs and deserves a future. As a movement of some 50,000 fans (and growing) the Scottish Football Supporters Association (SFSA) believes that it really is possible to renew, reform and reclaim the game. But the engine of that transformation has to be those who love and follow the game. That is what this Fans’ Manifesto is all about.
 In 2015 we asked football supporters across Scotland what they wanted to see for the future. We got an amazing 10,000 responses.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 Among the mass of ideas and comments there were aspirations large and small. In this document we have distilled some of the biggest ones, and combined them with ideas that have now been in circulation – buttressed by a number of other surveys – for some time. This Manifesto contains nine key pointers towards the future of football game in Scotland. It is intended not as an end, but as the beginning of a renewed national conversation that needs to reach out well beyond the established boundaries if it is going to bring credible action
RENEW THE GAME
 01 Bring back the fans through competitive pricing and family facilities at every club
02 Make football in Scotland media-friendly and innovative at every level
03 Re-market the Scottish game, pressing for financial fair shares and transparency REFORM THE GAME
04 Rebuild the game with larger divisions, more variety and improved competition
05 Equip every club to be a ‘community hub’ for wellbeing and entertainment
 06 Re-invest in youth through fresh plans for training and education
 RECLAIM THE GAME
07 A ‘diversity drive’: 25% fan representation on all governing bodies in five years, 50% women, a permanent place for the national fans’ body
08 Regular, independent auditing and review of the performance of governing bodies and clubs
 09 Extend community and collaborative ownership, create a fans’ right to bid or buy when clubs are for sale, create a fans’ bank or fund
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Question
Did any of the 10000 fans who responded to the survey mention that there might be a problem with corruption at the SFA and SPFL?
If so
Were they so few in number that their concerns were excluded from the Fans Manifesto?
Question
Did any of the 10000 fans who responded to the survey mention sectarian singing, intimidation of officials, letter bomb training, assaults in the street as potential issues being ignored by the governing bodies?
Or in a nutshell
Did any of the 10000 fans who responded to the survey mention dissatisfaction at the manner in which the SFA and SPFL were handling the Rangers situation?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Or to summarise the above
Did the SFSA sanitise the 10000 responses of their own volition or did they do so at the request of a 3rd party?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
There are stacks of angles  to the above which could be addressed by many of the fine posters who inhabit this blog
Whats clear so far is that SFSA are not a democratic organisation despite being in existence for well over a year 
Its also clear that despite their “plan” to eventually become democratic they are unfit in the immediate term to represent Fans concerned about the way the Rangers saga has been corruptly managed by the governing bodies 
Indeed their own manifesto specifically ignores the biggest scandal in Scottish football in living memory


Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
Early Warning
This post might be unpopular
But
I`ll stand corrected if I`m wrong 
IMO
If there is one thing suspicious  in all of this corrupt saga it`s the  convenient emergence on the public stage  of the SFSA in the last fortnight
 This self-appointed  body with apparently no funds is stuffed with self-appointed  politicians One of them at least  has been found guilty of having dirty hands. It has created a community company appointed its own Board and defined its own remit before its public launch. It doesn`t once use the words morality or integrity or fairness or corruption to justify its existence. It doesn`t even mention  a goal of being transparent to its members  It has  invited German football academics to tell their unelected Board what sort of questions Scottish fans  should be asked  about. It has went on to unilaterally approve  a bland  survey questionnaire that will consume a few months help dissipate the  anger of some  fans and tell us nothing we don`t know already.

The official SFSA top down remit will take years to completion. It smacks strongly of how the English Child Abuse Enquiry was set up years ago by politicians determined to protect politicians and their establishment allies. Its Terms of Reference were deliberately set so wide that many of the accused and their victims passed away before their case got considered. And that`s exactly what could happen here.
Or put more simply
It’s not an organisation claiming the simple  raison d`etre of upholding sporting integrity
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Survey Document
The survey document smacks of long term civil service thinking. It starts from the premise that things might actually be hunky dory, so let’s take the next few months to quantify  the “general level of disquiet”. This top down approach is a recipe for time wasting and switching off the members. It is frankly smacks of the sort of approach you would expect from Soviet era Trade Unions. The festering sore that is the Rangers tax case doesn`t qualify for a mention. SFA and Police management of  sectarian behaviour is ignored, Nothing is asked about how our corrupt governing bodies are paralysed about physical intimidation in football.how keeping the peace outranks morality. This is despite letter bomb training, street assaults and threats to torch a football ground. Most of all is the complete absence of an SFSA declaration of transparency.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Corrupt SPFL Statement

Its early days for the SFSA
So far they have not commented on the SFA and SPFL Statement. Does their Board have no opinion?
Or
Is it because the leadership of the SFSA is well aware it is not a “Fan Elected Body”?
Meaning
It has no mandate to speak for its members. So they are obliged to keep quiet.
However, having no mandate also means they should not respond to any  appeals from our corrupt authorities to engage in private  discussions
It is clear that the governing bodies wish to avoid discussing the corruption crisis in terms of sporting integrity. Their strategy is moving the goal posts from integrity to legal mumbo jumbo. Their aim is to confuse the peasants. Their premise is that  limited knowledge of the judicial system will force the peasants into disgruntled forelock tugging compliance
Meaning
Move along peasant
If its legal and immoral then its ok 
If it’s against integrity  but within the rules its ok
Sometimes rules have to be bent if we think it’s necessary
Trust Us. That`s what happens in business
They forget that we peasants have simple minds. We see issues in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. We expect integrity to be the backbone of organisations who claim to be trustworthy.
Whats more worrying 
I would not be a bit surprised if the SFSA are  the first to be invited by the corrupt SPFL and corrupt SFA to come and talk to them in private about their forthcoming “Independent” meaning corrupt Review. Indeed they might even end up as “Representing the Fans ” on this stitch up.
That would be outrageous
 Unelected politicians one with dirty hands representing you on integrity issues with that lot
Summary
I don`t see the SFSA fulfilling the role of speaking for fans in the specific one off battle against  the corruption witnessed over the past few years.
In particular
The current un-elected SFSA Board may attempt to act in this role by cooperating with the so called SPFL Independent Review or try to subvert the timetable of the  Judicial Review that is currently gathering momentum
If this happens
it will be a sign that they see themselves as budding members of the establishment. People who are in cahoots with the corruption we are trying to root out.
And as for representing fans  to the governing bodies on any other issues.
The acid test  will be whether they replace the SFSA Board with elected fan representatives  BEFORE they have their first formal  meeting with the SG or football governing bodies.


About the author

Avatar