The increasing attacks on social media by the main stream press, fuelled in some respect by David Murray’s vague threats of litigation against bloggers, has brought into sharp focus the challenges facing the Blogosphere. It also brings into even sharper focus the prescience of Stuart Cosgrove’s assertion that this summer’s ‘epistemological break’ had begun to marginalize the Scottish sporting wing of the MSM.
The reality of that assertion is embedded in the misreporting of the FTT decision as a victory for RFC, falsely alleging that those who operated the EBT scheme had been exonerated, that RFC had ‘done nothing wrong’, and consequently accusing ‘vindictive anti-Rangers bloggers’ of playing a part in the downfall of that once great Scottish institution. It is also evident in Tom English’s rather bitter and one-dimensional anti-RTC polemic today in the Scotland on Sunday. Had it been entitled “Self Preservation”, it may have rung a few more truth bells.
I am not of the belief that the MSM is an instinctively pro-Rangers estate, but I do think that their reportage of the FTT is more geared towards discrediting the newly emergent forces in the social media area than it is towards rehabilitating the public image of RFC or David Murray.
However despite the contempt in which many people here hold the MSM and Murray, English does have a point that we would be foolish to ignore. No-one can deny that we do have a duty to ensure that we are responsible in how we present ourselves to the public. Now that our (and others’) success as a real and creative alternative has spurred the MSM into action, we are subject to greater scrutiny than at any time in the past. Our view is that we have to be pro-actively engaged in setting a standard for ourselves that is above those that the MSM have set for themselves.
We have on TSFM an audience exponentially greater than the number of posts. That presents us with a great opportunity to get our message across, but it also burdens us with an increased responsibility not to fall into the trap which has besought the Succulent Lamb Brigade.
We are a very different animal from RTC. RTC him or herself had information and insight to bring to the table that the administrators of this site do not. The founder and former admin of TSFM had the idea that the talent available from posters on the RTC – not just RTC himself – should continue to have a forum in a post-RTC world, and that those talents could be used to challenge the myths regularly represented as facts by lazy journalists in the MSM.
We have at our disposal on this blog forensic analysis of legal, media and corporate matters. We have an abundance of creative minds, all passionate about the game of football AS WELL AS a partisan love for their chosen club. With all that talent and expertise, we can make an impact on the agenda by challenging the misinformation and substandard journalism of the MSM, and our finest moments are when we do that. We lose authority and influence when the debate is impeded by bald accusation or innuendo backed up with little more than an historical view of our country.
Our biggest impact (and largest audience) is to be found when when our experts have collectively torn apart those myths presented as truths by the MSM, and when we have asked the questions that the MSM either can’t or won’t ask or answer. Those are the things that have driven the traffic to this site, and many of the emails we get congratulate us on that.
Our credibility plummets though when we go down the partisan path. We also get literally hundreds of emails from fans who ask that we cut down on the comments of those who are merely venting outrage at how they see the game being mismanaged (mainly so they can access the important stuff more quickly), and from fans who are just fed up with the constant name-calling – almost exclusively aimed at Ally McCoist and other Rangers figures.
If we claim to be an intellectual and journalistic rung or two above the likes of the Red Tops (not to mention to be decent and respectful of others), we need to refrain from the name calling and accusatory culture. We can ask questions, put items for debate on the public agenda, point out apparent irregularities and anomalies. In rushing to judgement of others from the comfort of the glow of our own laptop screens, we are guilty of the same lazy journalism we see in others. Name calling (all good fun of course on a fan site) is just a lazy thought process and as English says, comes across as “nasty”.
We never saw RTC as a fan-site. The original administrator of this blog never saw TSFM as one either, and nor do we. In order to succeed properly, we need sensible fans of ALL clubs to be comfortable and feel secure in our midst. Of course we are not breaking any laws, but can anyone honestly say that we have evolved into a welcoming place for Rangers fans?
TSFM is not about hounding any one club out of existence or into shame or infamy. In the Rangers saga we have sought to ensure that the football authorities play fair with everyone and stick to their own rules. One well kent RTC contributor, and no friend of Rangers, often said that if the FTT found in favour of Rangers we should move along and accept it. Well they did find in favour of Rangers in the majority of cases. That may not suit many of us, but we are the Scottish Football Monitor, not a Judicial Watchdog. We can say why we disagree with the decision, but criticism of the process through which the decision was arrived at is beyond our purview.
Since the accusation is often made in the MSM, we should state, unequivocally and unreservedly, that we are NOT anti-Rangers. Their fans face the same issues as the rest of us and they are welcome here. We are however, equally unequivocally against the gravy train journalism of the Scottish Football Wing of the MSM (with one or two honourable exceptions).
If the Anti-Blogateers in the press are correct, the popularity of the TSFM will recede as the Rangers Tax case reverts to the back pages before disappearing for good. However I do not believe that they are correct. I don’t believe that Scottish football fans are only motivated by either hatred – or even dislike – of one club. I believe we are more concerned with the game itself than the pot-stirrers in the MSM would have us believe, because we understand the interdependence of football clubs.
But we also understand that the people who run football clubs do not always run their clubs for the benefit of the fans. In the business world, that may not be out of the ordinary, since businesses are run for the benefit of shareholders.
However football reserves for itself a special place in the hearts of people in this country. If the people who run football clubs want to retain that favourable status, they have to be accountable to the fans.
The difficulty in holding them to account though, is that the cosy relationship cultivated between club directors, managers and players and the press renders the access to information a closed shop, and the information itself is heavily filtered and spun.
As long as we keep asking questions in response to the fruit of that cosy relationship, we will be providing people with an alternative angle and viewpoint, allowing them to come to their own conclusions, and not the one the MSM post-presser huddle delivers to us wrapped up in a bow.
For the SFM specifically, we believe that to have any influence, we need to enable the expertise at our disposal to flourish. It is also vital to our project that Rangers fans are included in our dialogue. We just can’t call ourselves the Scottish Football Monitor if they are largely excluded from participation because they feel they are being treated disrespectfully.
We can’t tolerate the accusations and name calling. We need to stick to what we have done best; factual analysis, conjecture based on known facts and on-line discourse leading to searching questions being asked.
One of the things we are looking at for the near future is to set up some kind of formal and transparent channel of communication between the SFM and the football authorities. Being truly representative of fans will make that easier to achieve.
The MSM will continue to attack the social media outlets. In one way you can understand it. Their jobs are at stake. The business model of the print media in particular has changed massively over the last five years, manifesting itself mainly in increasingly under-resourced newsrooms. Consequently it is besought by increasingly unreliable and under-researched journalism, even to the point where much of it is no longer journalism at all.
By comparison the Blogosphere has access to greater human and time resources, is able to react to unfolding events in real time, and crucially (because it has been eschewed instead of embraced by print media proprietors) has been occupied by ordinary folk with little or no vested interest.
We are still in position to provide a service in our small niche of the on-line world. We have rights to publish and speak freely about our passion, but we also have to live up to the attendant responsibilities, and thus the appeal for discretion on posting comments.
Where Tom English got it completely wrong (in the uniquely ironic way the MSM have about them), is that his industry has mistaken the rights others have earned for them as entitlement, and ignored almost completely the responsibility they had to act on behalf of those who pay their wages.
An extract of Rod Petrie’s statement at the Hibs AGM last night may show some reasoning behind TRFC’s attitude towards Hibs.
Rumours of the financial position of Rangers had been circulating for some months but it was still a jolt to Scottish and European football when Rangers finally went into administration on 14 February. It took four months of twists and turns, deals and no deals, before the Rangers’ CVA was voted down by HMRC on 14 June.
Having run out of money, the Administrators immediately sold the assets to the consortium led by Charles Green, which had the effect of putting Rangers outside football. By selling Ibrox Stadium and splitting it from the club’s membership of the SFA and the SPL, Rangers had lost its ability to play football in Scotland or, indeed, anywhere in the world.
It took four months to put Rangers outside football. It took Scottish football just six weeks to find a place for the Rangers’ Newco.
Your Club did what it thought was right at every step of the process. The rest, they say is history.
Would it be appropriate for Celtic Supporters to pick up and promote the byline of “the most successful active football club in the world” or would this cause discontent and maybe stimulate discussion as to the definition of “active”?
Just wondering like …
exiledcelt says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 10:33
I repeat the quote:
“The all-seated 50,987 capacity stadium is owned by RFCL”
Night Terror says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 10:43
I will repeat too – I tell everyone that I own my house – but it has a mortgage on it
I also own a car – I pay monthly payments on it
You get my drift
The prospectus is carefully worded to ensure it says what you think it says but does not actually say it
Night Terror – the worst example is the RFC Debenture holders who “owned” a seat for life.
Not sure they do anymore do they?
@exciledcelt
I think you are getting conversational and legal language confused. If you said you owned a house that you actually had a mortgage on, that may be fine in conversation, but if you were to get divorced, your “ownership” of that entire house would not stand up if you and your spouse divided your assets, including the house, without including the bank.
That prospectus is a document that has more than conversational import when it describes RFCL as owning Ibrox. I suggest if there is a mortgage on Ibrox, then that document is misleading in a legal sense.
Any lawyers wish to confirm or deny this interpretation?
exiledcelt says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 10:49
Quoting an entirely specious example of the use of a word does not help your argument.
After the Internet bampots again
http://m.local.stv.tv/glasgow/news/205281-young-stirling-albion-fan-struck-with-coin-during-rangers-match/
Tweets from the “fans”
To the sc____gs who r threatening rangers with court action over contract issues I wish them all career ending injuries
@naisy14 well looks like your lying once again your trying to sue rangers what a pathetic greedy c**t you are you’ll never be welcome again
All the players suing rangers GTF! If they wanted the money the lost when taking a wage cut shud have stayed! Don’t jump ship for free!
@ForeverBlue21 @naisy14 They were never Rangers men what they did and continue to do proves that, they make me sick #Judas
@naisy14 We paid your wages for the 2 years you were injured And now you do this you are not a Rangers fan your scum you w____r
Lovely “peepil” eh?
EasyJambo 10.37
i disagree with you about petrie.
petrie was involved in the secret emails to get sevco into football asap, after they bought the assets. sevco had no licence, no players no team, no league to play in.
up to the point of my earlier post – the granting to sevco of a membership that IS NOT IN ANY RULE BOOK.
petrie was up to his neck.
the fact he is willing to tell the truth that the rangers are a new club doesn’t wash his hands clean!
the fact is sevco/the rangers should be thankfull to everybody for ignoring/bending/breaking rules
to accomodate them, but they are not – they are BLAMING everybody else.
————————————————————————————————————————
An extract of Rod Petrie’s statement at the Hibs AGM last night may show some reasoning behind TRFC’s attitude towards Hibs.
Rumours of the financial position of Rangers had been circulating for some months but it was still a jolt to Scottish and European football when Rangers finally went into administration on 14 February. It took four months of twists and turns, deals and no deals, before the Rangers’ CVA was voted down by HMRC on 14 June.
Having run out of money, the Administrators immediately sold the assets to the consortium led by Charles Green, which had the effect of putting Rangers outside football. By selling Ibrox Stadium and splitting it from the club’s membership of the SFA and the SPL, Rangers had lost its ability to play football in Scotland or, indeed, anywhere in the world.
It took four months to put Rangers outside football. It took Scottish football just six weeks to find a place for the Rangers’ Newco.
Your Club did what it thought was right at every step of the process. The rest, they say is history.
Night Terror says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 10:56
0
0
Rate This
@exciledcelt
I think you are getting conversational and legal language confused. If you said you owned a house that you actually had a mortgage on, that may be fine in conversation, but if you were to get divorced, your “ownership” of that entire house would not stand up if you and your spouse divided your assets, including the house, without including the bank.
That prospectus is a document that has more than conversational import when it describes RFCL as owning Ibrox. I suggest if there is a mortgage on Ibrox, then that document is misleading in a legal sense.
Any lawyers wish to confirm or deny this interpretation?
==========================================================================
Guys…call it “legalese/semantics/conversational” interpretation if you wish….but what I am looking for, in order to establish a realistic “asset base”, is whether the title to Ibrox, however that may defined, is free from any charge, encumbrance or similar external financial guarantee to a another party.
…not surprsingly, I cannot see anything which allows me to draw such a conclusion.
The expression “off balance sheet finance” raises its ugly head….and not for the first time with Rangers/MIH…!
140yrs of unsurpassed dignity. Aye riiight!
Can someone explain to me why they decided to mark 140yrs with such a high profile? I have never known any other entity to do so. I don’t recall them begging up 110,120….130 so why 140?
When was the planning for this put in place? Could it have been that somewhere in the dark recesses the higher ups knew liquidation was a foregone conclusion and decided either this is the last mark they could celebrate or did they conceive that to do so would strengthen the continuation lie?
Scottish football would be a much better place if this lie was put to bed. Then maybe the decent fans could start a club free of the old mantras with a constitution that lets the vocal bigot minority ( minority but a large and committed minority) know they are not welcome.
History is earned and retained…..NOT bought and sold.
Night Terror,
The Prospectus does say that TRFCL purchased Ibrox and Murray Park.
It is quite specific at one point in saying that RFCL owns Ibrox, but this could (and, again, could not) hide the fact that there are outstanding conditions, Floating Charges or mortgages connected to this.
More pertinently, the phraseology in relation to Murray Park refers to the club “benefiting from” and “enjoying the use of” the “world class” training ground.
Much as I might “enjoy the use of” my neighbour’s trampoline if he invited me into his garden.
As Bomber said: “Show us the deeds!”
essexbeancounter says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 11:23
You can;t find it because there has been no such information released, and I think you are quite right to have suspicions regarding this.
I fear TRIFC may have left themselves a legal problem with the “RFCL own Ibrox” statement if that is not, as you suspect, the whole truth.
Don’t know or have any idea Why the prospectus would NOT INCLUDE THE TITLE DEEDS FOR IBROX? I see no reason way they wouldn’t be included .CG has already stated in a interview with STV that he has had IBROX independently evaluated at 80 million and the documentation to PROVE IT!
So why was or is not available is beyond me 🙁
As essexbeancounter says, an unencumbered ownership of Ibrox, and to a slightly lesser extent Murray Park, are crucial to the prospects of the company.
As a football team whose identity is wrapped in Ibrox stadium, and which does not really have the option to play elsewhere, they are effectively imprisoned in a contractual or mortgage arrangement for the right to play at Ibrox. This is a significant drain on future resources and compromises their ability to compete.
If I were thinking of buying shares in this company, I would want utter clarity about this.
I hope for The Rangers International Football Club’s sake this is not the case for most of their potential investors.
Night Terror says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 10:56
1 0 i
Rate This
@exciledcelt
I think you are getting conversational and legal language confused. If you said you owned a house that you actually had a mortgage on, that may be fine in conversation, but if you were to get divorced, your “ownership” of that entire house would not stand up if you and your spouse divided your assets, including the house, without including the bank.
That prospectus is a document that has more than conversational import when it describes RFCL as owning Ibrox. I suggest if there is a mortgage on Ibrox, then that document is misleading in a legal sense.
Any lawyers wish to confirm or deny this interpretation?
————————————————————–
The prospectus has a number of points that at best are misleading.
In order to make a financial decision to invest your cash into such a venture…has to be taken on the details being accurate and factual.
The only people who matter in this are the fans who intend to invest.
Whilst we have pointed out issues within the prospectus that should give pause for concern to ordinary low to medium income investors. I fear their heart will rule their head in making an emotional commitment to what at best is a highly questionable prospectus.
NT can you provide the name or names of the individuals who own Ibrox and if there are any floating charges against the title deeds?
One would assume that in order to provide the greatest possible support to the floatation, a clear view of said deeds would have nailed his case. it is now the middle of December and still nobody knows who actually owns the stadium.
When a die hard Rangers fan like Mr. Findlay QC is unable to aquicre a copy of the title deeds then something ain’t right…
As I say it makes no difference to me what so ever…it’s not my cash they are taking…
Out of interest will you be buying shares NT?
I’ve had a read of a thread on FF re. the AIM flotation and there is some well informed discussion there that essentially cautions Rangers fans and says, “don’t touch this with a barge pole.” Despite this a number of posters are saying that they’ve spent, or will spend, numerous multiples of £500. I guess that some will be posting as cheerleaders and not actually spending any money but it looks as if some are.
Putting aside rivalries and the extremist views aired on various messageboards, why are football fans such mugs? Why are Hearts fans investing £750,000 in their financial basket case of a club when some not very good players get paid up £10,000 a week? Why are Rangers fans scratching about for £500 when the club they follow is paying well over the odds (for the league they’re in) for the likes of McCulloch,Templeton and Black?
Working people are being taken for mugs with eyes wide open but brains switched off, it’s crazy.
@paulmac2
In answer to the 2 questions you direct at me, as I thought my comments above made very clear, I have no idea if anyone other than RFCL have a claim on Ibrox or MP, and no, will not be buying shares.
I find it most amusing that you ask the latter question of me.
However, if someone had a spare £500 and a mischievous bent, buying shares in TRIFC and using their status as a shareholder to ask some awkward questions could be a stimulating if hazardous pastime.
onceabhoy says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 11:24
6 0 i
Rate This
140yrs of unsurpassed dignity. Aye riiight!
Can someone explain to me why they decided to mark 140yrs with such a high profile? I have never known any other entity to do so. I don’t recall them begging up 110,120….130 so why 140?
—————————————————————–
They were not liquidated in the years representing 110..120…130
The club was liquidated in its 140th year….in order to continue to create the illusion they were not liquidated and that they somehow magically avoided this death…what better way than to hold a form of recognition than a 140th…
It suggests they exist…it suggests they are the same…it provides all the emotional comfort blankets the fans of the old club need.
You must understand that to remove a club you have followed for 10…20…30 or more years to suddenly not exist in the modern game is akin to being told suddenly your mother has passed away…they cannot and will not allow that to happen and they are prepared to threaten…bully and discredit anyone who states that fact…
It is a dangerous game with what we know can be a very unstable support base.
blu says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 11:54
Working people are being taken for mugs with eyes wide open but brains switched off, it’s crazy.
===================================================================
Blu…and for neither the first nor last time will this sort of nonsense be inflicted upon working people.
However, as with the Celtic share issue under Fergus McCann, such “working people” do not buy shares as an investment, but rather a “emotional or moral obligation” to the club with which they associate themselves. (One has of course to exclude the £50m. (-S)DM rights issue fiasco of a few years ago, when the Peepil told him where to go!
In summary, rational investment criteria a left well alone in these cases…but I do agree about ….”mugs with eyes wide open…”…!…just wondering if they will still be mugs in a year or so when the RIFC begging bowl is passed round again…!
Re Ibrox and Murray Park. I remember reading that after the purchase of Oldco assests by Sevco 5088 a new Sevco was set up. Sevco Scotland. Most of the assets of the Oldco were then transfered from Sevco 5088 to the new Sevco. However Ibrox Park and Murray Park remained with Sevco 5088. So in my opinion whoever owns Sevco 5088 owns Ibrox and Murray Park.
Night Terror says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 12:03
————————————
I believe in essence that was the issue being pointed at by others…there is a very big question mark over the exact details of who owns the stadium and what charges may exist against it?
The fact this issue has not been publicly declared would suggest 1 of 2 things…Charles has lost the deed document or there is something detailed or listed within its content that is damning…otherwise why the effort to shield it?
And the latter question was a genuine question…I was interested to know if you would be investing…and if so my follow up would have been to ask your reasoning.
Perhaps Charles Green’s intention of spending only 33% on (players’?) wages is more realistic than I first thought if TRIFC are weighed down by charges for the right to use Ibrox & MP.
blu says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 11:54
Putting aside rivalries and the extremist views aired on various messageboards, why are football fans such mugs? Why are Hearts fans investing £750,000 in their financial basket case of a club when some not very good players get paid up £10,000 a week? Why are Rangers fans scratching about for £500 when the club they follow is paying well over the odds (for the league they’re in) for the likes of McCulloch,Templeton and Black?
Working people are being taken for mugs with eyes wide open but brains switched off, it’s crazy.
——————————————–
The art of a good con is to get the punter begging to take the goods from you and to take his/her cash. Hence appeals to people’s greed, offers that are ‘today only’, appeals to emotion etc will always lever cash from people whose defences are weak against them.
I really don’t care if the prospectus is full of misinformation….i don’t care if chuckie lines his pocket fleecing the bears….i really don’t care if this is a great/terrible (delete as apt) investment
whatever happens to THE Rangers now, is largely academic.
It’s almost 100% certain they won’t return to the level they had previously reached and that will lead to a downward spiral of cost cutting/loss of interest/loss of income/cost cutting repeat etc
we have had the BTC result, we will soon have the share floatation – and the hoorays that will be trumpeted along with it – the Dual Contract investigation appeal (and depending on the outcome, the fall out from that) we may have the UTT appeal, we may yet have scottish football reorganisation
these are essentially life support events for the indignation of the angry mob
Once these have all passed – REGARDLESS of the outcomes – well, that’s it…..all over…..nothing for the angry bears to look forward to. It’s kinda like waking up on boxing day after all the hype and excitement of a childhood christmas
What then?
Well, the end of the 3rd division season, the summer of no transfer activity, the 2nd division preseason tour of Linfield and Hamburg, the 2nd division – and more new grounds and slightly better teams to face, maybe a cup humiliation from a big boy team depending on the draw or if ally is still in a job….then…….January transfer window….never a great window anyway, but will it be big business or fiscal prudence? then the end of the 2nd division season, close season, a wee bit of transfer activity and onto the 1st division……a few more teams to boycott, a few more chances to get Celtic in the cup
the point is, there is no great conspiracy event for them to rally against for a while….no hype, no antagonism, no mistruths to be quashed….just lower league football
it’ll fizzle out – until the chance of SPL admission raises it’s head.
But i doubt chuckie will still be around and he has no incentive to rabble rouse anymore….he has their money.
The SFA have allowed a monster to be created and it’s feeding on the immediate fallout….the next few years will see things calming down – until they get back into the SPL
blu says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 11:54
Working people are being taken for mugs with eyes wide open but brains switched off, it’s crazy.
I would simply like to comment that this whole “prospectus” is a mere shadow of what would normally be required of any business coming to market for the first time, be it a full Stock Exchange listing, AIM or Plus or any of its smaller relations.
Normally, there is much more in-depth reporting actual (five years!) or so results, followed by five years (max.) forecast, of both results and cash flows. Obviously there is no track record for the new RFIC and for that reason, any forecast would be speculative.
Those individual or corporate investors will have succeeded in buying their shares cheaply (£0.01!) and will offload them at a profit, hopefully for them, as soon as trading begins (just watch them!). The “working people” referred to by Blu above, will be left holding some colourful but worthless pieces of paper, sorry, share certificates, possibly in a worthless holding company.
Finally, the fact that Deloittes have charged a mere £9k for their services must indicate that there is so much missing from this PR exercise!
is it possible that the institutional investors have paid £0.01 for their shares in newnewco?
At this time of year it is customary to send relatives, friends and neighbours a nice Christmas cards. Depending on who they are they might get one saying ‘To Dearest Sister and Brother in Law’, ‘from Our House to Your House’, and more frequently quite simple ‘Christmas Greetings’. You get my drift.
This year I had to buy a rather special card which I posted off this morning to Mr Green at The Rangers Football Club, Ibrox.
It was headed ‘On Babys First Christmas’.
He will also get a special Birthday Card next June.
jonnyod says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 08:11
29 0 Rate This
abcott 00.08
Is your post on buildings and conditions genuine ,if so am I reading this right .
They are asking serious investors to put big sums into a business that states it has not had the buildings surveyed properly and as such they can’t confirm if they have any structural defects or
contain the dreaded Asbestos (which was rumoured in the past )
==============================
Yes – it is in the prospectus.
http://www.rangersshareoffer.com
Thought from way out on left field.
If the institutional investors have received shares for an extremely low price could they have been the same investors in Ticketus? If they subsequently are able to sell their shares on (I don’t know who to however) then their profit could equate to the losses from the Ticketus deal.
As I said just a thought but is this a possibility? From what I can gather the only people who appear to be putting real money into this are the fans themselves.
abcott says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 00:06
From the prospectus;
Condition of Buildings
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.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
By saying “would not” instead of “did not”
The Valuer is making 2 points
1 He does not know if an ARA was commissioned in Dec 2010 when the presence of asbestos was allegedly discovered during repairs to burst pipes.
and
2 if an ARA report does exist then the Valuer has not seen it
OR
Put another way
TRFC are either unwilling or unable to provide the Valuer with access to an Asbestos Risk Assessment
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Valuer covers himself by using wording that makes clear that his valuation will ignore any costs related to asbestos.
Green may think he is off the hook by careful wording
However the Valuer is much cuter than Green and his lawyers
By mentioning asbestos at all the Valuer is declaring he has an asbestos quandary in making his valuation
As a professional he knows that if the presence of asbestos is suspected RFC are legally obliged to assess the risk to personnel by commissioning an Asbestos Risk Assessment Report.
Meaning
The Valuer is aware that at least one ARA should have been carried out if asbestos was suspected. If an ARA was not done then it should be carried out forthwith
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
When a business ignores statutory obligations of a technical nature it often does so from ignorance. This normally comes to light when some issue brings it to the attention of HSE
In this case there is no such excuse.
Green will have copies of all the relevant technical records associated with the property assets.
If he doesn`t he is breaking the law.
So either
Media reports suggesting asbestos may be present were completely wrong .There was no rebuttal of these reports from RFC at the time
Or
TRFC have a statutory record of an Asbestos Risk Assessment Report carried out after the burst pipe incident in Dec 2010
Or
TRFC are failing in their statutory duty to maintain and update an ARA carried out in Dec 2010
Or (most unlikely)
The MIM chose not to commission an ARA despite allegations of asbestos by the firm repairing burst pipes at Ibrox
I know a few Rangers fans, they are definately not buying into this.
What about you guys, are you seeing the same?
Night Terror – agree with you that the language does indicate ownership but disagree its unambiguous.
All CG had to do is show the deeds to the surveyors and their footnote would be disclosed accordingly that there was proof of no leins on the property.
Instead they exonerated themselves by stating they had seen no proof
Now CG knows full well that this is a huge question hanging over him – so he had the chance to put that one to bed. He did not. And you have to wonder why….
exiledcelt says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 13:15
If you bought shares in TRIFC only to find Ibrox & MP required rent or interest payments, do you think the prospectus is sufficiently ambiguous to prevent legal action?
I think the quote “The all-seated 50,987 capacity stadium is owned by RFCL” is unambiguous, unless I’m missing some sort of qualification of it elsewhere in the prospectus.
If you don’t believe that quote to be true, that is an entirely different matter than the statement itself being unambiguous.
Night Terror – reason I said unambiguous was that the whole document for me does not show the company the investor is being ask to pledge to buy shares in has the whole undisputed ownership with no incumbances – they may say RFCL – not RFCIL own Ibrox – and the part where the surveyor exonerates themself of even seeing any proof of ownership never mind any loans on it, makes you read it in less uncertain terms.
Now if your question which you allude to is as follow, then I have to agree with your question.
If I invest and later find out CG only owns Ibrox but via another comnpany who lease it to RFCIL do I have grounds to sue him for false infromation?
I would say no – CG has convered himself very well I think!
Night Terror says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 10:56
7 1 Rate This
@exciledcelt
I think you are getting conversational and legal language confused. If you said you owned a house that you actually had a mortgage on, that may be fine in conversation, but if you were to get divorced, your “ownership” of that entire house would not stand up if you and your spouse divided your assets, including the house, without including the bank.
That prospectus is a document that has more than conversational import when it describes RFCL as owning Ibrox. I suggest if there is a mortgage on Ibrox, then that document is misleading in a legal sense.
Any lawyers wish to confirm or deny this interpretation?
…………..
Personally I have no idea how this all works, however does anyone really believe that it is beyond Chuckles or any of the other dodgy characters at Ibrox to put disinformation into legal documents?
Who in Scotland would ever challenge him? If he was found out he would be dealt with leniently, blame someone else and play the victim. (Or more likely, he will be out the back door with his swag by the time it matters). Why not just show the deeds?
The same goes with the stadium structural problems, why not just show all the information on the potential problems with Asbestos?
Maybe it’s the same reason dual contracts were hidden, because when at Ibrox, they can do as they please.
The prospectus also indicates that of the proceeds of the share issue, £5.5m is earmarked for the ground in 2013 and a further £3.5m for the ground in the future. However it does not specify what for. Could it be to purchase the ground from someone (£5.5m) and then to make necessary improvements or safety measures? One doesn’t like to speculate, but they leave us no choice.
The truth is, that none of us really know what is going on inside Ibrox, and Charlie, without a doubt, will only have told us what he wants us to know
I doubt very much that there is anything in the prospectus that is deliberately misleading, but what is there, will have had as much spin put on it as possible to paint the rosiest picture of the business
In some ways we are looking through a steamed up window, only getting little glimpses of what is going on inside, and that’s what Charlie wants
He will let us all speculate to our hearts content, and will never put himself in a position where he has to comment
Remember, we are not his target audience, and are therefore irrelevant
Page 15 of the Rangers Share Offer Prospectus;
Risks
SPL Commission investigation. Further sanctions may be imposed by the Scottish football authorities. In June 2012, the SPL announced that it was investigating certain EBT payments made by RFC 2012 plc in relation to players and managers during the period from 2000-2011 following the claim brought by HMRC against RFC 2012 plc for unpaid taxes arising as a result of the operation of the EBT and dual contracts by RFC 2012 plc. On 20 November 2012 the tax tribunal determined that there was no tax liability for RFC 2012 plc which had arisen in relation to the EBT.
============================================
Can anyone confirm/refute the claim in the final sentence? Is this a case of clever semantics by the offfer writer? My understanding was that the FTTT told MIH and HMRC to go away and agree how much MIH was liable to pay in taxes in a limited number of cases where EBTs were found to have been used on a contractual basis.
exiledcelt says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 13:52
Night Terror – reason I said unambiguous was that the whole document for me does not show the company the investor is being ask to pledge to buy shares in has the whole undisputed ownership with no incumbances – they may say RFCL – not RFCIL own Ibrox – and the part where the surveyor exonerates themself of even seeing any proof of ownership never mind any loans on it, makes you read it in less uncertain terms.
==========================================================================
Can the surveyor really exonerate himself and protect against legal action simply by stating that he hasn’t really checked ownership, structural and asbestos defects but here is the valuation any way because it is assumed everything is tickety boo?
By allowing(or instructing) the surveyor to take such an approach are RIFC allowing a valuation to be placed on the key asset that could be incorrect because they have information that contradicts the assumptions made. If so, where would they stand legally were it to be challenged by an investor?
Campsiejoe: You really don’t think there would be anything deliberately misleading in the prospectus?
Personally I would be stunned if their wasn’t.
bogsdollox says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 14:50
3 0 Rate This
exiledcelt says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 13:52
Night Terror – reason I said unambiguous was that the whole document for me does not show the company the investor is being ask to pledge to buy shares in has the whole undisputed ownership with no incumbances – they may say RFCL – not RFCIL own Ibrox – and the part where the surveyor exonerates themself of even seeing any proof of ownership never mind any loans on it, makes you read it in less uncertain terms.
==========================================================================
Can the surveyor really exonerate himself and protect against legal action simply by stating that he hasn’t really checked ownership, structural and asbestos defects but here is the valuation any way because it is assumed everything is tickety boo?
By allowing(or instructing) the surveyor to take such an approach are RIFC allowing a valuation to be placed on the key asset that could be incorrect because they have information that contradicts the assumptions made. If so, where would they stand legally were it to be challenged by an investor?
……………….
Maybe that is one of the reasons Chuckles is doing his utmost to ensure that it is only individual supporters will have any interest in investing. There won’t be any big investors, only mug punters, and who out of them will challenge anyone in the big hoose? That wouldn’t be very loyal.
ordinaryfan says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 15:01
Given that Mr Green has made a number of statements and predictions that have either proved to be incorrect or that he has later contradicted, if he had anything to do with writing the prospectus, his track record would suggest it would take a good editor to make sure everything was 100% accurate.
Peter A Smith @PeterAdamSmith
Charles Green will be live in the #scotnight studio tonight at 10.30pm. Send the questions you want to ask the Rangers CEO. Only on STV.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/205373-players-union-defends-right-to-raise-legal-action-against-rangers/
Players’ union defends right to raise legal action against Rangers
STV 11 December 2012 15:01 GMT
Rangers have said that the claims made by PFA Scotland are “baseless”.© SNS Group
The Scottish players’ union has issued a strongly worded response to Rangers’ claim that 67 unnamed players were raising legal action against both the old and newco.
It comes after Rangers revealed in its share prospectus that it was robustly defending an action by “PFA Scotland…on behalf of 67 unnamed players at the employment tribunal in Glasgow”.
Players also distanced themselves from the action apparently being taken on their behalf.
PFA Scotland initially declined to comment but released a statement on Tuesday saying it wished to clarify its position.
The players’ union said that it was entitled to make a claim without the consent of individual members.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the claim for a Protective Award has been raised in the name of PFA Scotland only,” the statement said.. “It is one legal claim and has not been lodged in the name of any player let alone some 67 individual players as has been reported.
“It is quite simply inaccurate therefore to suggest that PFA Scotland has acted here without instructions. PFA Scotland does not require instructions to raise a court action in its own name. PFA Scotland regularly represents its members as a collective – for example when speaking to the football governing bodies.”
blu says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 11:54
Despite being absolutely Hearts daft for nearly 50 years, I, at first, refused to even consider ‘investing’ any of my hard earned money in Hearts’ share offer. Then, about a week ago, I realised that if I didn’t do my best to help, and the worst case scenario came about, I could never say, to myself or anyone else, that I did my best for the club I claim to absolutely love. I realised that for nearly the whole of my life the one thing that has been consistently there, was Heart of Midlothian FC. Outside of family and a few close friends, nothing has ever mattered as much to me, and if my club disappeared, and I did nothing to try to save it, then that was a huge chunk of my life gone that I couldn’t really have valued that much after all. When my wife came home from work a few hours later, we discussed it, and without hesitation she told me to buy as many shares as I could and she’d give me more for Xmas. My dilema was sorted 🙂
This is the one thing I have genuine sympathy for, and understanding with, The Rangers supporters in this whole debacle, and despite what others might say, they are acting exactly how the vast majority of supporters, of every club, would in the same, or similar, situation. While, however, I am ‘investing’ in Hearts with my eyes wide open as Hearts are making no claims about the share issue that would induce anyone other than a Hearts fan to buy their shares, Green and co are making out, to anyone blinkered enough, that it is a great investment opportunity while leaving much of what is important unanswered in their prospectus.
One thing that still bothers me, about the Hearts current share issue, is, should Hearts now be made available for fan ownership, there’s close to a million pounds of fan’s money invested in the current ownership that could be put to, perhaps, better use ie invested in the new venture. The same is true of any monies raised for Green and co, but, if they are not as kosher as the bears would like to believe, and who knows? they just might be; what happens if The Rangers Football Club needs a fan buy-out tout suite in a few months time?
Night Terror
This morning, amongst many other points, I stated that we still dont have visibility on the title deeds. You took up that point and seemed to infer that I was mistaken as “page 4 of the prospectus……………………….. states that the stadium is owned by RFCL.” You further stated that, “That seems unambiguous. They claim to own the stadium.”
Who’s “they”? Charles Green and friends?
———————————————————————–
By this afternoon your position seems to have changed to, “If he (Charles Green) had anything to do with writing the prospectus, his track record would suggest it would take a good editor to make sure everything was 100% accurate.”
Have you experienced a Road to Damascus type conversion? The prospectus is either ambiguous or not. But either way, we still haven’t seen the deeds!
My apologies in advance if I am shrouded in ignorance.Ibrox title deeds;for any property to be sold,transferred,swapped or whatever the sale, transfer or swap to be effective has to be registered at the land register,which is a public register.Furthermore any secured loan,mortgage,floating charge etc also,to be effective requires to be similarly registered.Therefore the owners of Ibrox have to have their title to the property registered on a register open for anyone to view.You don’t need to see the actual deeds,either order copies from the land register or have a search agency carry out an up to date search.If its not registered it ain’t effective .
Am I missing something here?
The creation of The Rangers and the manner in which it has been sold guarantee that for as long as this club lives there will be endless bitterness in Scottish football – which will make the previous “Old Firm” rivalry appear like a picnic. In the past the prime focus of hatred was the Old Firm clash. This new club now hates everybody.
There are a number of very specific reasons for this.
Firstly the “Then, Now, Forever” lie – many posters seem to think that this is a matter for the Rangers fans- and indeed had the SFA allowed the truthful version of events to be stated then that would have been the position. Rangers died, they could not continue and so a new club was set up, and against all precedent was allowed entry into the SFL.
This truth could have and should have been sold loudly as the compromise – very generous to the Rangers fans , which allowed football to be continued at Ibrox. Had the footballing authorities done this – and allowed no liabilities to carry over to NEWCLUB then I believe we would have had a relatively peaceful transition with a grateful support angry at their demise – but ready to move on.
The failure to announce this truth has led to the siege mentality rooted in an associated Cognitive Dissonance which has grown and will continue to grow to ever more dangerous proportions. Rangers fans have been told, and now one must assume, genuinely believe that this is their club continuing. They are thus outraged to be relegated by three divisions, have lost most of their players and been vanquished from Europe for three years. this , to them, in their new Dissonant reality, is a hideous unforgivable injustice, motivated either by spite or by bigotry – it can thus never be forgiven.
Reality has become the enemy of t’Rangers fans – any who point out reality such as Thommo are ” Rangers haters” -any who point out the truth are “Rangers haters”, the truth itself is now a “Rangers hater”. Bizarrely, those whose ripping up of the rule book to allow football to be played at all at Ibrox are also “Rangers haters” The authorities which bent over backwards to promote the Zombie club into the league and stayed silent when asked to explain the decision are now also “Rangers haters”
They have a vicious and ugly mindset lashing out at all of their enemies. And when the truth is your enemy, you lash endlessly I am afraid – their bitterness cannot and will not ever be assuaged. Even if all of Scottish football were to buy into their lie, even if they were to be parachuted into the SPL even if all investigations into the misconduct of the club were to be abandoned and they were to be told that they had done no wrong, even if all of Scottish football were to get down on their bellies and grovel in subjugation, the bile would remain forever. They will spend the rest of their existence seeking revenge. The more one tries to compromise the worse they will become.
This is the monster that Cognitive Dissonance produces – it should and has to be tackled by the hammer of reality – once the delusion is allowed or even compromised over or even assuaged slightly then it becomes an unstoppable force of anger and poison. Many many people have died over human history as a result of similar mindsets – “Downfall” brilliantly shows Hitler’s mindset in the same condition.
Pandering to delusions is unbelievably dangerous – it must be avoided at all costs – the moment any semblance of the delusion appears to be sustained by evidence , far from allowing a subsequent reconnect to reality it simply magnifies the intensity of the delusion.
We are probably too late actually. We have created a mentally sick club built on a dangerous delusion which will get sicker with time and not healthier; the more they are appeased the stronger the delusion.
The blame for this is split three ways – Green’s reckless pandering to the worst excesses of the mob by feeding their delusion, the MSM likewise in utterly appalling style – and we must include the publicly funded BBC in this (like propagandists of dissonant fascist and communist regimes rather than journalists) and most contemptibly the hierarchy of Scottish football. They have allowed and actively consorted in what they know to be a lie out of sheer stupidity and short term-ism.
Scottish football was always pretty ugly; whilst this club remains it will be doomed to division and rancour permanently.
I think a need for a fan buyout at some point after the respective share issues is a nightmare scenarion for Rangers and Hearts.
At least with Hearts, the current share issue is for something specific – the tax bill – and there seem to be genuine moves to cut the expenditure to put them on a more sustainable footing from January, albeit with a huge suspicion that at some point Tyncastle will will be something Hearts end up paying someone to use. It will be painful, but you can kind of see the logic. An investor would still run a mile though.
For TRIFC, it hasn’t really been stated with any credibility what the money raised from a share offer will be used for. Any analysis of the books suggests it can only be for cashflow to get through this, and possibly the next couple of seasons, as well as providing a return for the current shareholders. I don’t see any suggestion the £10m hole in the annual accounts will be addressed any time soon. The money raised by the TRIFC share issue looks like it will just be a cash bonfire from which fans can gain some comforting warmth for a while.
Forth Electrical Services (FES) of Stirling, who carried out the burst pipe repair work at Ibrox, is a reputable company. I am sure that when its workers discovered the asbestos problem, the firm would have insisted on inspectors conducting a survey of the suspected contaminated areas, if only for the health and safety of the FES workers. Will that contractor have a copy of the ARA report?
In the wake of the adverse burst pipe publicity (one home fixture was cancelled) Traynor went into print and also stated on BBC radio that repairs were necessary to the stadium and would cost £12 – £14 million. He did not mention the word asbestos when referring to this work. RFC did not refute that major repairs were contemplated or that Traynor’s figure was a gross exaggeration of the actual amount.
Footnote: Despite FES of Stirling doing a sterling job, the MBB left it whistling for 83k.
nevilleprat says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 15:47
My apologies in advance if I am shrouded in ignorance.Ibrox title deeds;for any property to be sold,transferred,swapped or whatever the sale, transfer or swap to be effective has to be registered at the land register,which is a public register.Furthermore any secured loan,mortgage,floating charge etc also,to be effective requires to be similarly registered.Therefore the owners of Ibrox have to have their title to the property registered on a register open for anyone to view.You don’t need to see the actual deeds,either order copies from the land register or have a search agency carry out an up to date search.If its not registered it ain’t effective .
Am I missing something here?
****************
What you are missing is why the survetors did not do that
I used to work at RoS and LR at Meadowbank House in early 80s. Anyone can go and look up the land for a fee and if it has a standard security on it – anyone buying a flat or bit of farmland gets a solicitor to do a searhc to ensure the bloke selling it to you has the right to do so and if anything is on the property for a secured loan, it can be ascertained if its ok to proceed or not. An unsecured loan would not be registered obviously in same way Ticketus “loan: would not be registered.
So do we know who owns Ibrox? DO we know if there any loans taken on it either secured or unsecured?
Why in a prospectus was CG unable to make it chrystal clear to everone who owns Ibrox – and more importantly Murray (soon to be renamed allegedly) Park……..
Why not make it clear who WILL own Ibrox after RFCIL comes into play…………
Tommy says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 15:56
Footnote: Despite FES of Stirling doing a sterling job, the MBB left it whistling for 83k.
======================================================================
Sheesh !! £83k for fixing one or two burst pipes. I’m in the wrong game.
Night Terror says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 10:22
doontheslope says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 15:41
I can’t really offer you much more than what I’ve already said on this, doontheslope. I inferred no such thing from your comments, as they were unarguable and in the prospectus, and neither did I seek to imply that what you said was incorrect in my subsequent comments:
I was simply making the point that the prospectus makes a very clear statement that RFCL own the stadium, and consequently, if this proves later not to be wholly accurate there could be trouble for them.
My position hasn’t shifted a jot. It may be that I am less definite than you on the real ownership status of Ibrox, MP etc, but I think we are both thinking along the same lines. I would just rather underline what we do know about the ownership of these assets, and right now all that amounts to is that the prospectus states RFCL own Ibrox, and that Charles Green has a record of making statements that are inconsistent in a number of ways.
The lack of anything more definitive is interesting, and we can surely speculate why this is, but from the firm grounding of this statement in the prospectus, it may be possible to enquire further of Mr Green to get a much more definitive statement of fact. I am sure he would want to be entirely truthful and open regarding this to avoid any possibility of investors in TRIFC being gulled into buying something that was not what they expected.
allyjambo says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 15:31
=============================================
allyjambo, articulate as ever (still crazy from any objective point of view) but I think that at least you’ve engaged your brain and still made the decision to spend your money. I’d tend to agree that the Hearts situation is more transparent and share your concern that the fans money is just being used up on ongoing costs rather than buying any meaningful leverage or power in the club. Like Rangers and any number of others though you had no choice – it was either accept the bid on the table (Robinson/Vlad) or go out of business.
Paul 67 of CQN –
A quick £13m profit for Green and pals
11th December 2012
Charles Green and his initial backers have achieved a remarkable result with what is already evident in their prospectus. Page 66 notes: “In the period to 31 August 2012, a total of 25,340,000 shares were issued for a total consideration of £7,719,000”, issued at approximately 30.4p per share. At a price of 70p per share these shares would be worth £17.738m, a cool £10m profit.
Since that August date Green has enjoyed something of a windfall. Page 83 notes, “The contractual right to an option over 10 per cent. of the enlarged ordinary share capital of RFCL was exercised by Charles Green on 31 October 2012 by a partial exercise notice pursuant to which 5,000,000 ordinary shares of 1p each in RFCL were issued to Charles Green on 31 October 2012.”
That’s 5m shares, worth 70p each, which is a stunning £3.5m to add to the above £10m!
Next month a raft of new bodies will have notifiable shareholdings, specifically: Hargreave Hale, Artemis Investment Management, Cazenove Capital Management, Legal & General Investment and Insight Investment Management, all of whom will seek returns for their money.
2012 was the year Rangers were liquidated. It was also the year the assets were snatched from the grasp of an array of Rangers fans by people who saw an opportunity.
2013 will bring an SPL Commission and Upper Tier Tribunal issues for oldco but the consequences of these share issues will determine the performance of newco for decades to come. I think you and me should keep quiet about this. Let Charlie carry on and do what he needs to do over the coming weeks.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=11150
doontheslope says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 15:41
…or, in short (hooray!) it is possible for a statement to be unambiguous, but also lacking evidence to support it, misleading or completely incorrect.
Maybe someone with the suitable skills could do the blog a favour by scrutinizing EXACTLY what the prospectus says regarding the asbestos. It certainly seems to be worded in a very complicated way. Made me think they were trying to obscure something.
bogsdollox says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 16:10
Tommy says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 15:56
Footnote: Despite FES of Stirling doing a sterling job, the MBB left it whistling for 83k.
======================================================================
Sheesh !! £83k for fixing one or two burst pipes. I’m in the wrong game.
—————————————————————————–
Given who was probally sending them the bill,it could be considered money well bumped 🙂
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/scottish-premier/4031794/Scottish-referee-Craig-Thomson-gives-up-the-day-job.html#
ordinaryfan @ 15:01
For deliberately misleading read lieing
There is no doubt there will be sections of the prospectus which will have been “massaged”
http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/2902-charles-green-statement
Another statement.
Night Terror
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think we are singing from the same hymn book.
campsiejoe says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 14:43
I doubt very much that there is anything in the prospectus that is deliberately misleading,
——
Of course, we would never accuse someone of deliberately trying to mislead people to which he is trying to sell something.
However, the phrase “economical with the truth” does spring to mind.
exiledcelt;16.04
Your point is noted.I have however noted many posts in relation to the current proprietorship of Ibrox.Has anyone a copy of the most recent registered title?There is no other way to determine who or what is the owner than by checking the land register which is open to all.
Is there a day that doesn’t go by with yet another missive from Chuckles?
Robert Coyle says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 16:36
Anyone else wish he could keep quiet for a couple of days and give us all a break? It would be nice to look at the sports pages, and not see ‘Charles Green in Rangers-are-victims(again) shocker!’
I would put my mortgage (or fixed charge, if you will) on the registered owner of Ibrox, the car park and the training facility as being Sevco Scotland Limited, which changed its name to The Rangers Football Club Limited.
Extracts from prospectus
The Company and its Directors (whose names appear on Page 16 of this document) accept responsibility for the information contained in this document. To the best
of the knowledge and belief of the Directors and the Company (who have taken all reasonable care to ensure that such is the case), the information contained in this
document is in accordance with the facts and does not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information. (my underlining)
========================================================
The London Stock Exchange has not itself
examined or approved the contents of this document.
========================================
No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made by Cenkos Securities as to any of the contents of this
document for which the Company and the Directors are solely responsible.
=======================================================================
So now we know where we stand for our 70p x 500 investment
I’ve read on here and elsewhere a fair few analysis of TRIFC’s prospectus and have tried to make my own mind up by weighing those that see merit in it against those who find fault(s) within it. The problem with that strategey, of course, is that there seems a preponderance of critical analysis while very few people have even tried to defend it by producing counter arguments, other than ‘you are all Rangers haters so your talking rubbish’ type retorts. So, weighing one against the other, I am forced to hold great suspicions that it hides a multitude of sins with so many important questions going unanswered, and some excedingly (in my opinion) optimistic revaluations similar to that of the Murray years. As I’ve posted earlier, the vast majority of us would, if we loved our club enough, react in the same way as the Rangers fans by buying into it purely on the grounds that we have to. But why, if indeed it is true, are these institutional investors even remotely interested. Did they buy into Manchester United? If not, why not? – Oh yes, of course, not even Man United are a sure, or even remotely sensible, bet. So why buy into the remains of a once big football club on the basis of a prospectus with so many unanswered (maybe not even asked in the right quarters) questions? What has Green told or promised them? Has he, or any of his associates, been calling in favours? I know from first hand experience that these financial spivs are happy to create, and call in, favours when investing other peoples money, but even the most unscrupulous fund manager isn’t going to go into something that could concievably bomb unless, of course, he knows he has a get-out clause set in stone.
Do we know (is it a known known?) that all the institutional investors are commited to investing, or is it, as I suspect, no more than Green’s assurances to the gullible that are being banded about? Could it be that some, if not all, of them are repaying favours by merely allowing him to bandy about their name but all the time knowing they have no intention of getting involved? It is in the nature of the beast that a share issue is more popular when the institutions get involved as confidence is increased so there’s great value to Green to have the bears believe they (institutions) are buying into it.
And one for the financial experts, could these institutional investors actually be buying options that they would only take up should Green’s true plans, whatever they might be, come to fruition?
MORE DODGY FA DEALS
The SFA Article 99 Arbitration proceedings over the Rangers players that walked are another fudge and display of cowardice by the SFA.
When the proceedings were commenced on 5 July 2012 TRFCL was not a member of the SFA so Scotland’s governing football asociation allowed RFC 2012 plc, a club in administration, to ‘front’ for TRFCL and RFC 2012 plc agreed any damages would be paid to TRFCL. So the ordinary creditors get stiffed yet again possibly for millions by D&P and Rangers combined if chico wins the case for compenation.
It’s hardly surprising PFA Scotland have challenged TRFCL’s rights to participate in the process in any capacity as it wasn’t a member of the SFA at the time of the alleged contract breaches and not even on the date of the reference to the SFA under Article 99.
A preliminary hearing has been fixed for 7 January 2013 to resolve the jurisdictional isues with a full hearing possibly by March or April next year.
If anyone can’t get enough of The Charles there’s a spoof Green on twitter. Funny stuff if you need some comic relief.
@CharlesGreenThe
From “Scotland Tonight’s” facebook http://www.facebook.com/#!/scotlandtonight
Charles Green will be live in the #scotnight studio at 10.30pm tonight. Send us questions you want to put to the Rangers CEO.