Good Evening.
As we ponder the historic vote to create a new Governing body to oversee Scottish League football, I cannot help but wonder what brilliant minds will be employed in the drawing up of its constitution, rules, memorandum and articles of association?
Clearly, Messrs Doncaster, Longmuir and even Mr Regan as the CEO of the SFA will be spending many hours with those dreaded folk known simply as “ The Lawyers” in an attempt to get the whole thing up and running and written down in the course of a few short weeks.
In truth, that scares me.
It scares me because legal documentation written up in a hurry or in a rush is seldom perfect and often needs amendment—especially when the errors start to show! The old adage of beware of the busy fool sadly applies.
It also scares me because the existing rules under which the game is governed are not, in my humble opinion, particularly well written and seem to differ in certain material respects from those of UEFA. Even then, adopting the wording and the approach of other bodies is not necessarily the way to go.
I am all in favour of some original thought– and that most precious and unusual of commodities known as common sense and plain English.
Further, the various licensing and compliance rules are clearly in need of an overhaul as they have of late produced what can only be best described as a lack of clarity when studied for the purposes of interpretation. Either that or those doing the studying and interpreting are afflicted with what might be described as tortuous or even tortured legal and administrative minds.
If it is not by now clear that the notion of self-certification on financial and other essential disclosure criteria necessary to obtain a footballing licence (whether European or domestic) is a total non-starter — then those in charge of the game are truly bonkers.
Whilst no governing body can wholly control the actions of a member club, or those who run a club, surely provisions can be inserted into any constitution or set of rules that allows and brings about greater vigilance and scrutiny than we have at present—all of course designed to do nothing other than alert the authorities as early as possible if matters are not being conducted properly or fairly.
However, the main change that would make a difference to most of the folk involved in the Scottish game – namely the fans— would be to have the new rules incorporate a measure which allowed football fans themselves to be represented on any executive or committee.
Clearly, this would be a somewhat revolutionary step and would be fought against tooth and nail by some for no reason other than that it has simply not been done before—especially as the league body is there to regulate the affairs of a number of limited companies all of whom have shareholders to account to and the clubs themselves would presumably be the shareholders in the new SPFL Ltd.
Then again to my knowledge Neil Doncaster is not a shareholder in The SPL ltd– is he?
I can hear the argument that a fan representative on a league body might not be impartial, might be unprofessional, might be biased, might lack knowledge or experience, and have their own agenda and so on—just like many chairmen and chief executive officers who already sit on the committees of the existing league bodies.
Remember too that the SFA until relatively recently had disciplinary committees made up almost exclusively of referees. I don’t think anyone would argue that the widening of the make up of that committee has been a backward step.
However, we already have fan representation at clubs like St Mirren and Motherwell, and of course there has been an established Tartan Army body for some time now. Clubs other than the two mentioned above have mechanisms whereby they communicate and consult with fans, although they stop short of full fan participation– very often for supposedly insurmountable legal reasons.
As often as not, the fans want a say in the running of their club, but also want to be able to make representations to the governing bodies via their club.
So why not include the fans directly in the new set up for governing the league?
Any fan representative could be someone proposed by a properly registered fan body such as through official supporters clubs, or could be seconded by the clubs acting in concert with their supporters clubs.
Perhaps a committee of fan representatives could be created, with such a committee having a representative on the various committees of the new league body.
In this way, there would be a fan who could report back to the fan committee and who could represent the interests of the ordinary fan in the street in any of the committees. Equally such a committee of fans could ensure that any behind the scenes discussions on any issue were properly reported, openly discussed, and made public with no fear of hidden agendas, secret meetings, and secret collusive agreements and so forth.
Is any of that unreasonable? Surely many companies consider the views of their biggest customer? This idea is no different.
Surely such a situation would go some way towards establishing some badly needed trust between the governing bodies and the fans themselves?
If necessary, I would not even object to the fan representatives being excluded from having a right to vote on certain matters—as long as they had a full right of audience and a full right of access to all discussions and relative papers which affect the running of the game.
In this way at least there would be openness and transparency.
In short, it would be a move towards what is quaintly referred to as Democracy.
Perhaps, those who run the game at present should consider the life and times of the late great Alexander Hamilton- one of the founding fathers of the United States of America and who played a significant role in helping write the constitution of that country.
Hamilton was a decent and brilliant man in many ways—but he was dead set against Democracy and the liberation of rights for the masses. In fact, he stated that the best that can be hoped for the mass populace is that they be properly armed with a gun and so able to protect themselves against injustice!
Sadly, Hamilton became embroiled in a bitter dispute with the then Vice President of the nation Aaron Burr in July 1804. Hamilton had used his influence and ensured that Burr lost the election to become Governor of New York and had made some withering attacks on the Vice President’s character.
When he refused to apologise, the Vice President took a whacky notion and challenged him to a duel! Even more whacky is the fact that Hamilton accepted the challenge and so the contest took place at Weehawken New Jersey on the morning of 11th July 1804.
The night before, Hamilton wrote a letter which heavily suggested that he would contrive to miss Burr with his shot, and indeed when the pistols fired Hamilton’s bullet struck a branch immediately above Burr’s head.
However, he did not follow the proper procedure for duelling which required a warning from the duellist that they are going to throw their shot away. Hamilton gave no such indication despite the terms of his letter and despite his shot clearly missing his opponent.
Burr however fired and hit Hamilton in the lower abdomen with the result that the former secretary to the treasury and founding father of the constitution died at 2pm on the twelfth of July.
The incident ruined Burr’s career (whilst duelling was still technically legal in New jersey, it had already been outlawed in various other states).
In any event, in Hamilton’s time full and open democracy in the United States of America would have met with many cries of outrage and bitter opposition. Yet, today, the descendants of slaves and everyone from all social standings, all ethnic minorities and every social background has the constitutional right to vote and seek entry to corridors of power.
In that light, is it really asking too much to allow football fans to have a say and a presence in the running of a game they pay so much to support?
General observation re: obsolete print media.
======================================
It’s widely accepted that the newspaper industry is in terminal decline.
Print media will be replaced by online content eventually.
From a Scottish sports reporting perspective we have observed that the Scottish MSM is woefully inadequate. Nothing gives me confidence that this will improve in future.
We have also observed that the information gap has been – at least partially – filled by the Internet bampots – and the added bonus is that this has facilitated interesting and engaging discussion between football fans of diverse teams – i.e. not just the Glasgow teams.
So my point is that there seems to be a gap in the market. The Internet bampots currently have a credibility advantage over the print MSM wrt Scottish football. So could TSFM fill that gap?
Why wait for the MSM PR-fed nonsense to dictate online readership for Scottish football fans?
Apologies Charlotte,
Excuse my idiocy, but I was just about to add ‘was that what you meant to say ?’ before I fell foul of the new login procedure.
Please forgive me but, like many others on this forum, I do remain a little suspicious of your motivation for, what appears to be, the spoon-fed revelations of ‘who said what’ during the Rangers downfall.
I also worry that the overall focus of this blog and ‘bampottery’ in general, has shifted somewhat as we await, like Pavlov’s dogs, the next thrilling instalment of this saga, before scurrying off to our respective corners to absorb the newly released information.
Honestly I welcome the truth, in all its horridness. I am a big boy now and I think I can handle it. I believe the truth will set you free (but it’ll probably piss you off first)
Why not just ‘dump’ all your files on here and elsewhere and let the collective pore over the information ?
No one knows who you are or where you got your information
I am sorry to be so blunt but, what is your angle ?
jerfeelgood says:
June 18, 2013 at 12:11 am
ecobhoy says:
June 17, 2013 at 8:00 pm
“….. Often journos never ever know who their source is.
===================================================
As I have previously stated often a journalist doesn’t have a clue who their source is. Info can come in an anonymous phone call or in a brown envelope posted to a paper. Often the info is a fragment of the story and takes a lot of hard work to actually work-out what the actual story is. Often it’s from a deluded soul and means nothing.
The source provides info and the journalist then finds the corroboration to back up the info provided. Often in doing this the source info is proven correct but the source has honestly misunderstood the wider picture and there is actually no story worth printing.
I’m not so sure about the identity of the source but it has been over 20 years since I examined Watergate in detail as it’s the kind of puzzle I love 🙂
I doubt that a professional journo would ‘out’ a source for lying to them for a variety of reasons and sources seldom lie although they can be gravely mistaken with flawed info and also hide their true motivation. It’s all part of sifting the info and a good journo develops a ‘nose’ for a good tip-off.
I also disagree that if Felt was indeed the sole source that secondary confirmatory sources were necessarily required before being able to run any article based on the information. You have to look back but my memory tells me that actual FBI documentation must have been shown to whichever one of the reporters Felt had previously been friendly with.
Sources of sensitive material never want to be named and if they do their info becomes very suspect in the eyes of a savvy journo.
But the importance of the Deep Throat info is a bit like the CF material in that it presents the opportunity to officially approach the authorities not just on a fishing-exercise but with pointed factual questions which if denied can come back and bite them in the bahookie. So an understanding is usually reached and it is that person who becomes the unidentified ‘source’ confirming the article and not the original source. I’ve had a few pints and should have gone to bed when I came in so that might be as clear as mud 🙂
bogsdollox said on June 18, 2013 at 1:19 am
That analysis (which of course you are not providing) is a bit odd. Whyte borrowed money from Ticketus and gave personal guarantees. They lost their money (as it appears they always would do from Day 1) and Ticketus, not unreasonably, called in the guarantees. Why are you concerned that they allegedly misled MIH? Personally I don’t think they did. SDM knew the source of Whytes finance as did Lloyds and they didn’t care – RFC had to go from the Group before it went down.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
I’m not in the slightest concerned about the financial position of Craig Whyte or Ticketus. I just happened to make a comment on the basis that for the transaction to succeed, Octopus would have to deceive MIH. Octopus knew the deal would fall through if Murray became aware that Ticketus were providing the bulk of the takeover funds. The excuse of being duped wouldn’t stand a chance of holding up either.
http://i.imgur.com/TPH4LHa.jpg
Just watched the Scotland Tonight report on Hearts on the STV player…
A few points:
As another posted mentioned – after ten minutes a tweet comes in saying “There is a bright future ahead for Hearts …in the SPL and debt free” absolutely no comment on the question of stiffing the people owed money by anyone on the panel.
The MP fellow (Ian Murray?) in respect of the Hearts wage bill said ““…would still be the second or third largest in the premier league if Rangers (sic) are taken into account…”…eh?… does he know something we don’t?
Of course Archie MacPherson mentions “Rangers” (sic) …sure Archie like if the Ibrox mob had still been in the SPL that would have made one single jot of a difference….come on…they are talking about a debt of GBP 25 million….once again heavy hints of Armageddon…. more than a whiff of disingenuity me thinks…..
So what now…Scottish football needs a strong Hearts? No. Scottish football needs clubs who can live within their means. Is that so difficult? If they refuse to do this then they must face the consequences the same as any other business or institution has to. This is the reality…otherwise I am sure there will be several other clubs who will seriously consider stiffing those to whom they owe money. So if we are now to witness a procession of clubs going down this route then what will that do for the “Sake Of Scottish Football”?
Will Ogilvie have to recuse himself from any committees that meet to discuss the fate of his former club?
@ loamfeet
I have serious doubts that such a committee will ever be formed for him to make that decision.
CF
It seems to me you are saying that loose lips and paper trails may lead to the deal falling through rather than anyone being duped .
I could believe that but any duping just does not wash with me and it is a term used all to frequently by those involved in this debacle for my liking
StevieBC says:
June 18, 2013 at 2:16 am
It’s widely accepted that the newspaper industry is in terminal decline.
Print media will be replaced by online content eventually.
From a Scottish sports reporting perspective we have observed that the Scottish MSM is woefully inadequate. Nothing gives me confidence that this will improve in future.
=============================================================
Since the 1970’s I have concluded that the Scottish sports media are at their happiest when they can wax lyrical about Rangers when they are on top. They will likely never be totally happy again unless a similar scenario unfolds with Sevco. That, in my humble opinion, is the bottom line!
Have a nice day everyone!
@ upthehoops
A lot of the lyrical waxing over deid club I think was favour out of fear. Fear of losing the readership of the bears and also fear from those that held that club dear. Obviously there were hacks at the time who now retired have threw their masks off and have turned out to be rabid blinkered supporters of deidco, we all know who they are so I won’t give them the credit of a menchy. But that aside I feel that sports journalists in Scotland just seem to be of a very poor standard.
We have Keevins who wouldn’t be drawn into the financial downfall of RFC because his job was ” to report on football matches”. Well I’m sorry but in this day and age in all careers you now have to diversify to be good at what you do, right or wrong employers expect this from you. Strangely though, and I don’t want to just pick on Keevins because he isn’t the worst, but he would happily tell you that “all wasn’t well between Lennon and Commons. Was that a sports journalist just reporting on matches? Of course not and this was despite both Lennon and Commons denying any ill will. Rather ironically though around the same time Keevins was telling us that Jelovic who was about to be sold had to be believed was injured. Why? Because Ally told us so. Why wasn’t Lennon given the same balance of belief when he said all was ok with him and Commons? It’s just inconsistent stuff like that that makes me never buy a newspaper . Print is on the way out and good riddance to the lot of them.
Charlotte Fakeovers says:
June 18, 2013 at 2:54 am
10 2 Rate This
I’m not in the slightest concerned about the financial position of Craig Whyte or Ticketus. I just happened to make a comment on the basis that for the transaction to succeed, Octopus would have to deceive MIH. Octopus knew the deal would fall through if Murray became aware that Ticketus were providing the bulk of the takeover funds. The excuse of being duped wouldn’t stand a chance of holding up either.
http://i.imgur.com/TPH4LHa.jpg
————–
I am a little puzzled by that paragraph Charlotte. Do you mean they had to ‘be seen to deceive MIH’? Or are you saying that they did, in fact, dupe MIH and Murray? Or was this magician’s trick the fakeover?
The Greatest ever Adminitrator 🙂 🙂 🙂 jinx more like???
Charlotte Fakeovers says:
June 18, 2013 at 2:54 am
I’m not in the slightest concerned about the financial position of Craig Whyte or Ticketus. I just happened to make a comment on the basis that for the transaction to succeed, Octopus would have to deceive MIH. Octopus knew the deal would fall through if Murray became aware that Ticketus were providing the bulk of the takeover funds. The excuse of being duped wouldn’t stand a chance of holding up either.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I can well understand why Sir David Murray could not be seen to know that Ticketus were funding the deal. There are laws against buying a company using its own money, so he would want to be seen to have clean hands.
However I find the idea that hands-on owner Murray did not in reality know where his hand-picked Motherwell “tycoon” was getting the money to pay off the bank very difficult to accept. Especially since Murray had recently been using Ticketus himself.
My first reaction when I looked at this aspect 18 months ago was to conclude that Whyte had been introduced to, or at least pointed in the direction of Ticketus by Murray. I’ve seen nothing since to change my mind on that. I accept that there will never be any paper trail to support that theory, but then the whole idea was to ensure that there would be no paper trail. The only possible evidence would be a voice recording of a meeting between Murray and Whyte. What are the chances?
@CharlotteFakes
Lunch in Monaco, how nice.
i.imgur.com/TsuQTXb.jpg
—————-
Craig and Sir D on a lunch date. Payments? I take it the date on the email is Dec 2 and not Feb 12.
Some droll replies on twitter, here’s one:
@Bugsymaloned
@CharlotteFakes Did Craigy request to pay his £1 up in instalments?
4:16am – 18 Jun 13
Does anyone know any links (family, business or whatever) between SDM and his and Craig Whyte and his before the famous £1 changed hands and the next chapter began.
I seem to remember reading on RTC that there was a business link between DM (it was the olden days of MIM) and Craig’s dad.
It involved a haulage firm that worked for DM.
Those who occupy the control tower in Scottish Football are quite happy.
CO is SFA Chairman for the next two years.
New ‘Gers will be in Div. 2 and then Div.1 for the next two years.
Result ? New ‘Gers will get all the help & protection they need from the governing body through their key placeman, CO. until they arrive in the top league in two years time.
All is well.
The Plan is working.
Is there anything else happening ?
Not in New ‘Gers world.
Q. Do New ‘Gers have a future in the real world ?
A. No.
Folks
I know it is interesting and often informative to read post where CF or his/her motivations are the subject but CF is’nt the story, the material is.
Interestingly there is less questionning if its credibility so why no digging?
There are some keen minds here so why not pick on one issue express views on what it seems to be telling us and the consequences if true and in so doing enlighten everyone.
fara1968 says:
June 18, 2013 at 7:56 am
I’m sorry but in this day and age in all careers you now have to diversify to be good at what you do, right or wrong employers expect this from you.
===================================================================
I’m afraid that I don’t agree with you on the diversification aspect of sports reporters being able to carry out complex investigative reporting on a major long-running story which involves politics. finance and legal issues.
Of course, in this day and age, if an employee is told to do something that he has never been trained for and never done before and doesn’t want to do then they will do it or be sacked. Whether they do that job effectively is very doubtful. I would say that, in particular, only a handful of sports journos wouldn’t fail miserably on the non-footballing aspects of the Rangers story and many might fail on the footballing side as well.
It’s all about horses for courses and if there had ever been any intention of dealing with the Rangers story seriously then editors wouldn’t have put sports journos in charge. Just think about all the sports journos you hear on radio and TV – do you think they actually would have a scoobie getting to grips with the story.
News and investigative reporters don’t get the same media exposure but they are a helluva lot sharper, on balance, than their sports department colleagues and are more au fait with legal concepts and many can comfortably find their way round a balance sheet.
If sports reporters ever stumble across a real story then it is passed to the news department to actually investigate and write to protect the sports guys and not get them barred from the club involved. I’m afraid sports reporters are seldom raging tigers determined to unearth the truth behind a story and are mainly more suited to filling papers with fluff.
A remote possibility of a link from David Murray to Craig White via the Bank of Scotland.
David Grier worked at the Bank of Scotland as head of cash flow finance and factoring. He may well have known David Murray’s contacts at the bank at that time – was it Gavin Masterton? And lo and behold a number of years later Grier is ‘advisor’ to white in the takeover deal.
#just saying
Actonsheep says:
June 17, 2013 at 10:55 pm
————————————
The point is that one of the journalists knew who Deep Throat was; no one knows who CF is, no-one has knowingly met him/her.
Who or what is CF?
Come out and tell us who you are, what have you got to be afraid of?
If a real person, with a passport or driving licence and recent utility bill, walks into a newspaper – preferably a national newspaper rather than a parochial Scottish one, and presents evidence such as CF drops into the ether from time to time, evidence that can be corroborated, then the story will be published.
Until then, expect nothing and you won’t be disappointed.
Ecobhoy, the reason the story won’t ever run in Scotland is that the MSM has a vested interest in the pre-2012 status quo, a vision where RFC win the league most years and Hearts challenge Celtic for 2nd…aye, right
They will do everything they can to restore that, even if it means ignoring the rule of law (and the rights of creditors). 123 years of the MSM reporting Scottish league football, allied to our own experiences – in my case of more than 40 years watching football – tells us that.
Charlotte Fakeovers says:
June 18, 2013 at 12:30 am
As Ticketus actively engaged in an operation to prevent MIH from finding out the true source of funding, I would award them nothing in damages. They knew that if this information came to light, there would be no deal as MIH would walk away. Ticketus engaged in a transaction based upon deceit, so it seems strange that their victory seemed to be based upon similar tactics of not disclosing the full truth.
——–
that’s an interesting last paragraph. Not sure I buy the MIH refusal part – MIH and Murray were in no position to refuse any deal, bearing in mind that Lloyds had taken possession of pretty much every aspect of Murray’s business portfolio and had been running the club for well over a year (the Cardigan told us so after Unirea had skelped RFC PLC (IL) in the CL – funny, no-one from the MSM though to follow up and get a confirmation/denial from anyone with the blue room of course). I can understand the PR view from the bank’s perspective that being seen to be “the one” who forced RFC PLC (IL) into administration may not have gone down too well with either: the hordes, certain politicians or other fine and upstanding members of the establishment. Bear in mind that Johnston told us that the bank just wanted out at any cost and administration was a certainty if no sale went through.
On the other hand, the Ticketus fund was all about deceit – establish who were the investors were in this fund and I’ve no doubt that everything would become clear. There was a long and cyclic debate on RTC about where this Ticketus fund got its money from in double-quick time to fund the purchase (next to zero in the fund in Feb/March 2011)? The people investing in this Ticketus fund almost certainly do have a lot to hide but not because MIH could have refused to sanction the deal with Lloyds.
One thing is for sure, as a result of this debacle, we all know how easy it is for spivs and crooks to create, hide and dissolve companies, avoid all regulation (sporting or business), and generally get away scot-free; it’s the new reality of the 21st Century world – for anyone interested in the wider and remarkably similar themes there was a nice article on the Golem financial blog a few months ago: http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2013/04/making-the-truth-illegal-revisited/
Good Morning.
Much debate as usual about whether to publish or not in the MSM.
As Charlotte says only they will know why they are not doing it.
The fact is that it is not the materials but the truth which is toxic to them.
Publish and be damned.
Veritas is a defence.
Nobody goes to jail for telling the truth.
Hoopy 7 says:
June 18, 2013 at 9:49 am
Nobody goes to jail for telling the truth
*****
Beg to differ
Do you plead guilty or not guilty
Guilty
Go to jail……..
I’ll get my prison coat…………….
In case anyone hasn’t noticed, Scottish professional football has been averaging an administration event every 16-17 months on average since spring 2002. Whatever Doncaster & Regan say, and however Celtic fans feel about the relative success of their team over this period, the full-time, professional set-up in Scotland doesn’t work.
Humble Pie says:
June 18, 2013 at 2:29 am
“Why not just ‘dump’ all your files on here and elsewhere and let the collective pore over the information ?”
—————–
Don’t know if Charlotte has responded later but I have this take on the modus operandi.
When undertaking a course of study there are a number of different approaches that can be employed. You can buy a text book and work your way through it. More commonly you will attend classes where a teacher who has already digested the course material will provide it to you in installments, with explanations as you go along. In this instance, Charlotte isn’t providing the explanations, she is allowing us to make the linkages ourselves. I think this makes for a more thorough examination of the material.
There is an adage that the best way to learn is to teach. The teacher, observing their pupils commentary on the subject, may themnselves become enlightened by the different constructs that can be placed upon the material. Perhaps Charlotte is benefitting from our analysis by seeing how the different threads may be interwoven. Speculation may open up new avenues of investigation.
I do agree that the information is becoming addictive and may detract from the wider issues. We will just have to deal with that and be aware that there are other matters to consider. Hearts administration and league reconstruction are two obvious ones that I’m sure will be examined over the coming months.
slimshady61 says:
June 18, 2013 at 9:42 am
Come out and tell us who you are, what have you got to be afraid of?
====================================================
For starters, how about a lifetime of abuse, threats, intimidation et al from the Sevco extremists – I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
Stay safe CF (just like everyone on here).
verselijkfc says:
June 18, 2013 at 9:48 am
On the other hand, the Ticketus fund was all about deceit – establish who were the investors were in this fund and I’ve no doubt that everything would become clear. There was a long and cyclic debate on RTC about where this Ticketus fund got its money from in double-quick time to fund the purchase (next to zero in the fund in Feb/March 2011)? The people investing in this Ticketus fund almost certainly do have a lot to hide but not because MIH could have refused to sanction the deal with Lloyds.
===========================================================================
I readily admit to not really having delved into the whole Ticketus saga and not for any particular reason.
But I’m not that sure that things would become clear if the identities of the individual investors was known. As to where the fund got its money from quickly I don’t necessarily see that as a problem. I believe – and could be wrong – that there are various Ticketus funds in operation and have been for years.
In fact I think DM used Ticketus at least as far back as 2009. So if a new ‘contract’ was made between Ticketus and a CW owned Rangers then the Ticketus sales people would have a ready pool of HNWI individuals who were already customers and who may have previously invested in Ticketus Rangers deals.
£17.5 million is absolute buttons in terms of raising investment cash and you have to remember that Ticketus would have other investment management companies that it could give a slice of the Rangers action to for the rich clients of these companies to invest in Rangers tickets. These companies would be motivated by getting a commission on the investment cash they raised for Ticketus.
As to the Ticketus clients having things to hide well that’s par for the course in this kind of investments and shouldn’t automatically infer any wrong doing. Many rich people disguise their investments and level of wealth for good reasons and not just for tax avoidance or evasion.
I just feel that individual Ticketus investors put their cash in on the expectation of making a profit as they probably always had before in what, in relative terms, was a fairly ‘safe’ investment. I think the real pressure to make sure these investors weren’t stiffed would be on the Ticketus/Octopus fund managers who would lose their own commission and wouldn’t want to lose probably long-term investors with the company. There would also be pressure from the other investment companies because they cost their clients money.
So I am sure that strokes have been getting pulled to recoup the ‘lost’ cash but I remain unconvinced that the actual individual investors are in the trenches fighting the battle. But I could be wrong because it’s still a mystery and I suppose that’s what makes it so interesting.
gsrx1 says:
June 18, 2013 at 10:39 am
slimshady61 says:
June 18, 2013 at 9:42 am
Come out and tell us who you are, what have you got to be afraid of?
====================================================
For starters, how about a lifetime of abuse, threats, intimidation et al from the Sevco extremists – I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
Stay safe CF (just like everyone on here).
********
From the Twitter world last Chris “lets see how it pans out” and his gang were bullying and threatening to disclose various Celtic twitterers – 3 of them that I follow closed shop rather than deal with it. Corsica1968 keeps being targeted and they came up with a name – Corsica pleaded it was wrong and not to have an innocent be targeted.
I myself have had calls made to my elderly parents years back telling them their son was going to have his throat cut etc and where they would find me – all because I was convener of a Celtic Supporters club – and was a turncoat apparently. Calls were made to them after closing time on a Sat after we had beat RFC-NIL – so was just some drunken idiots of the Peepil (I later found out who it was) – however, my elderly parents were besides themselves with worry.
I would not wish that on anyone.
Please all stay safe and no need to out anyone or force anyone to be public unless they are willing to do so of their own free will. It does not mean that you have anything to hide or are somehow illegally doing anything by remaining anonymous for the safety of the family, as Corsica1968 tried to reason with them – to no avail!
Castofthousands says:
June 18, 2013 at 10:31 am
Humble Pie says:
June 18, 2013 at 2:29 am
“Why not just ‘dump’ all your files on here and elsewhere and let the collective pore over the information ?”
—————–
When undertaking a course of study there are a number of different approaches that can be employed. You can buy a text book and work your way through it. More commonly you will attend classes where a teacher who has already digested the course material will provide it to you in installments, with explanations as you go along. In this instance, Charlotte isn’t providing the explanations, she is allowing us to make the linkages ourselves. I think this makes for a more thorough examination of the material.
===================================================================
There could well be issues for this Blog if CF were to ‘dump’ her files here. I also wonder just how many posters would be able to give the time required to sort them out in some kind of order let alone start digesting them and coming to any conclusions.
There is also the aspect that if they were all ‘dumped’ then the bad guys would probably breathe a huge sigh of relief if there was nothing to tie them into any skullduggery.
So although I get frustrated I think the approach currently followed by CF does make for a more in-depth analysis by posters. CF might not be able to structure things in a more organised way just because of the sheer volume of stuff she is dealing with. It’s easy to be overwhelmed by information overload and what might seem obvious to posters who haven’t had to search for the material and get it ready to tweet might not be as obvious to CF.
As to CF not providing explanations she might not have many and I was struck by her comment that she has contacted CW with questions. So we are all seeking answers and to me, and I accept I might not be typical, I see the answers as at least as important as any retribution. If we can learn what the main actors in terms or individuals and organisations actually were up to and why then we will actually make big steps to cleaning up things for the future.
Hopefully though we can destroy the reputation of people who have defiled Scottish Football as a warning to the replacements who will follow as surely as day follows night. And if we manage that even without any assistance from the spineless SMSM then all the better.
June 12, 2013 by broganrogantrevinoandhogan
“It also scares me because the existing rules under which the game is governed are not, in my humble opinion, particularly well written and seem to differ in certain material respects from those of UEFA. Even then, adopting the wording and the approach of other bodies is not necessarily the way to go.
I am all in favour of some original thought– and that most precious and unusual of commodities known as common sense and plain English”.
===================================================================================
The above would make sense to most people, but not everyone.
It seems to me the way the rules are written is deliberate.
Ifs, buts, maybes, and heretofores give the rulers of the game wriggle room in the event of unforeseen circumstances such as the Rangers case.
If the rules were not open to interpretation, how could the SFA and lawyers argue that black was white?
So I can’t see there will be an appetite for change in the style the rules are written.
If there was no wriggle room they would have to actually apply the rules, even to Rangers.
Imagine that!
Charlotte Fakeovers says:
June 18, 2013 at 2:54 am
“I’m not in the slightest concerned about the financial position of Craig Whyte or Ticketus. I just happened to make a comment on the basis that for the transaction to succeed, Octopus would have to deceive MIH. Octopus knew the deal would fall through if Murray became aware that Ticketus were providing the bulk of the takeover funds. The excuse of being duped wouldn’t stand a chance of holding up either.
http://i.imgur.com/TPH4LHa.jpg
”
————————-
Other have alighted upon this paragraph and I think it does merit closer examination.
The attached e:mail illustrates that Ross Bryan of Octopus was not happy with Paul Hassall bandying about information concerning the Rangers deal. The question is, was his displeasure because ‘chinese whispers’ would alert (S)DM/MIH or because it would make the deal traceable to MIH.
Chalottes subsequent post concerning the (S)DM/CW lunch makes it clear that (S)DM was still interested in Rangers post the CW takeover and more importantly, still interested in the HMRC outcomes.
Written text loses the stress and emphasis of the spoken word so it is difficult to discern Charlotte’s meaning if she is being ‘conversational’ in her paragraph. This is my interpretation :
“The excuse of being duped wouldn’t stand a chance of holding up either.”
So to be able to claim dupery, the link to CW needed to be obliterated.
“Octopus knew the deal would fall through if Murray became aware that Ticketus were providing the bulk of the takeover funds”
This is incogruent with my understanding up until now. It implies that the Ticketus deal was kept secret from (S)DM. Charlotte tweeted on 17th May :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142055727/what-murray-knew
This states that (takeover) funds should be held on deposit with Collyer Bristow. Withey et al see this causing a problem. This implies that (S)DM was kept in the dark concerning the source of CW’s capital.
“I’m not in the slightest concerned about the financial position of Craig Whyte or Ticketus. I just happened to make a comment on the basis that for the transaction to succeed, Octopus would have to deceive MIH.”
So based on the foregoing, this statement above could be read as follows. CW’s offer to buy Rangers was thought by MIH to involve new capital. CW instead was going to effectively load the club with debt.
If (S)DM did have a masterplan to return later he may not have been happy to see that (as I have become newly educated to understand), this was almost like a debt for equity swap with CW paying off the Lloyd’s debt by mortgaging future income.
Anything that appears to exhonerate (S)DM is rightly worthy of some sceptical treatment. However this is a nuance in the saga, though a very important one. Perhaps (S)DM did not know the full detail of CW’s plan, others will find this hard to beleive. I’m not sure myself but this is what Charlotte is implying for me.
slimshady61 says:
June 18, 2013 at 9:42 am
The point is that one of the journalists knew who Deep Throat was; no one knows who CF is, no-one has knowingly met him/her. Who or what is CF? Come out and tell us who you are, what have you got to be afraid of? If a real person, with a passport or driving licence and recent utility bill, walks into a newspaper – preferably a national newspaper rather than a parochial Scottish one, and presents evidence such as CF drops into the ether from time to time, evidence that can be corroborated, then the story will be published.
Until then, expect nothing and you won’t be disappointed.
————————————————————————————————————————
When I am prepared to reveal my identity then I might be in a position to request others to do so. Until then I will refrain from calling others out.
I have repeatedly pointed out that journalists often don’t know who their source is and using your rules then the information supplied would never see the light of day. Sources often have very good personal or professional reasons for protecting their identity.
It would appear that some posters on here think that a source supplies the whole story. That is very sledom the case and often all they do is give a pointer or have a feeling of disquiet about something which is happening which worries them.
A journalist takes that info and assesses it and often discards it – not because he doesn’t think it’s true – but because it would take too long and to be too difficult to check-out. That in today’s stretched financial times for the media is a major issue.
In CF’s case much of the information she has provided could be corroborated by a child or even a sports journalist. Corroboration isn’t the difficulty here but the collective lack of will of the SMSM to investigate and IMO there are a number of reasons for this which revolve around editors protecting themseleves. If you think journos do unsavoury deals with PR people just try and imagine what kind of deals that editors get up to.
And as to Deep Throat and I don’t want to labour this point – as we have our own ‘Watergate’ and are living through it – things were not as cut and dried as you appear to believe as to his or their identity. But that issue takes us nowhere because as I will repeat again – a journo doesn’t need to know who their source for a story is. All that is important is the info which provides him with the first step in his investigation and that’s to corroborate or knock-down the initial info provided.
It really is that simple and no amount of SMSM heads in the sand will remove that plain truth. I have no doubt that in a few years the whole behaviour of the Scottish Press will be the subject of PhD’s and will form class material on Journalism courses. I have no doubt that in a historical sense the SMSM will be shown to be gutless and spineless in their handling of the whole Rangers story.
I again will repeat my challenge to any journo reading to explain what prevents the SMSM from using the CF material as a basis for investigations with a view to writing a hard-hitting story. I really want to hear your thoughts and you don’t need to reveal your identity or organisation as the argument and how it is presented should show whether you actually are a journo. It would also help if you advise what discussions are taking place with colleagues over the CF material and its non-use and what the management position is for using a Nelson telescope.
——————————————————–
Actonsheep says:
June 17, 2013 at 10:55 pm
The simple point stands, there is nothing standing in the way of the press using what she’s publishing if it can be shown to be true. Nothing at all.
———————————————————–
I totally agree!
Carntyne says:
June 18, 2013 at 11:08 am
2 0 Rate This
June 12, 2013 by broganrogantrevinoandhogan
“It also scares me because the existing rules under which the game is governed are not, in my humble opinion, particularly well written and seem to differ in certain material respects from those of UEFA. Even then, adopting the wording and the approach of other bodies is not necessarily the way to go.
I am all in favour of some original thought– and that most precious and unusual of commodities known as common sense and plain English”.
===================================================================================
The above would make sense to most people, but not everyone.
It seems to me the way the rules are written is deliberate.
Ifs, buts, maybes, and heretofores give the rulers of the game wriggle room in the event of unforeseen circumstances such as the Rangers case.
If the rules were not open to interpretation, how could the SFA and lawyers argue that black was white?
So I can’t see there will be an appetite for change in the style the rules are written.
If there was no wriggle room they would have to actually apply the rules, even to Rangers.
Imagine that!
=========================
I get what your saying but I don’t believe that there is or was anyone smart enough at the SFA to draft rules so badly. 😀
Les Dawson was apparently a brilliant pianist and that allowed him to play so badly for laughs but I think the SFA just got lucky with their drafting of the rules. More accident than design, no matter what the conspiracy theorists think. However, no matter what the rules said there was no way any interpretation of them was going to go against RFC. That’s the galling thing here for me.
On Hearts, from my understanding the way forward is very much in the hands of the foreign liquidator and or companies. They not only own the shares but also hold the bulk of the debt, so if the administrator decides to go down the route of a CVA it will really be up to Hearts owners / main creditors to accept it or not. In reality they would be writing off the debt as I can’t see there being a huge sum raised, unless they manage to sell the whole squad. In which case would it be a viable business going forward.
On the other hand, the worry is that they may decide to say no, just liquidate the business sell off all of the assets and we will take the bulk of the proceeds. That may mean the stadium being sold, worst case scenario to a developer if a buyer wanting to continue operating a football team cannot be found.
Unfortunately for Hearts I do not see KPMG behaving in the same way as D&P. I very much doubt they will sell assets at the same “competitive” rates if a better outcome is possible. They may of course try a pre-pack solution, but again that requires a buyer and a viable business (albeit a different company) going forward.
Very worrying times and I wish the Hearts support all the best in coming through this.
Exiled Celt says:
June 18, 2013 at 10:58 am
Please all stay safe and no need to out anyone or force anyone to be public unless they are willing to do so of their own free will. It does not mean that you have anything to hide or are somehow illegally doing anything by remaining anonymous for the safety of the family, as Corsica1968 tried to reason with them – to no avail!
********************
This is fair advice. Many years ago I was on one of the phone in football shows, and made a couple of (to me) mild comments regarding an exRangers match, having been questioned about the Ibrox team by a panellist. My own call had been about a Scotland game, incidentally.
My phone at home, mind, no mobiles in those days, was then bombarded with abuse, possibly due to my unusual name which was easy to identify via the phone books. The effect of this is to silence discussion and set or steer agendas to placate the brain dead, which includes the panellists 🙂
If I ever contacted the media thereafter, it was under an alias.
Hola
not posted anything for a while, but thought i’d offer up this bit of a prediction in light of Hearts going into Admin and everyone except the governors of the game predicting it
Killie will do it within 18 months
What are teh SFA and SPFL doing right now to protect the clubs, the fans, the sponsors and teh creditors
I see Airdrie have been allowed to use the “old” name (sorry, Clydebank are now Airdrionians) and Sevco are Rangers and gretna are dropping the 2008 bit – all with SFA approval . Yet no creditors will be paid up.
At what point will a club like Ross County, Celtic or St Johnstone face financial difficulty because a supplier/bank etc be unwilling to offer credit facilities in case they get shafted by the cure all pill known as ADMINISTRATION?
Will the SFA step in to help these clubs in this situation?
Gaz says: June 18, 2013 at 11:58 am
===================================
There is little value in the site. A 2011 study looking into Hearts stadium development options carried an HSE report that severely limits development potential on the site, due to adjacent Ethanol storage by the distillery behind the Roseburn stand.
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/6125/report_on_stadium_options_for_heart_of_midlothan_football_club
The HSE advised against a new main stand, set a maximum of 250 square metres for retail development and recommended a limit of two dwellings on the bulk of the site and 30 dwellings per hectare on the remainder.
Any potential developer could appeal to the council to override the decision, but to my mind the site is of little value to a developer without planning permission agreed in advance.
easyJambo says:
June 18, 2013 at 12:59 pm
0 0 Rate This
Gaz says: June 18, 2013 at 11:58 am
===================================
There is little value in the site. A 2011 study looking into Hearts stadium development options carried an HSE report that severely limits development potential on the site, due to adjacent Ethanol storage by the distillery behind the Roseburn stand.
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/6125/report_on_stadium_options_for_heart_of_midlothan_football_club
The HSE advised against a new main stand, set a maximum of 250 square metres for retail development and recommended a limit of two dwellings on the bulk of the site and 30 dwellings per hectare on the remainder.
Any potential developer could appeal to the council to override the decision, but to my mind the site is of little value to a developer without planning permission agreed in advance.
=======================================
ant “developer” would have the fall back of a sitting tenant with a strong emotional attachment to the site – so they could buy it, then rent it back to the club – maybe even with an agreement to buy after x years. (so they have an out
in the meantime, they can work their planning proposals and overturn any HSE report.
Would be a cake and eating it type scenario for a developer.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: June 18, 2013 at 1:07 pm
ant “developer” would have the fall back of a sitting tenant with a strong emotional attachment to the site – so they could buy it, then rent it back to the club – maybe even with an agreement to buy after x years. (so they have an out
in the meantime, they can work their planning proposals and overturn any HSE report.
Would be a cake and eating it type scenario for a developer.
============================
It would certainly help any potential purchaser to have some rental income while sitting on the site, but real profit will only come from developing the site.
Even at the moment, I can’t see Hearts having a long term future at Tynecastle given the condition of the old main stand. As each year passes, maintenance costs to get a safety certificate are rising. A new stand is essential to long term planning and if that proves impossible (planning) or expensive (pay to move the ethanol storage) then the club will need to look at a new site, possibly in conjunction with the council (Meadowbank needs replaced) and / or Edinburgh Rugby.
easyJambo says:
June 18, 2013 at 1:17 pm
Even at the moment, I can’t see Hearts having a long term future at Tynecastle given the condition of the old main stand. As each year passes, maintenance costs to get a safety certificate are rising. A new stand is essential to long term planning and if that proves impossible (planning) or expensive (pay to move the ethanol storage) then the club will need to look at a new site, possibly in conjunction with the council (Meadowbank needs replaced) and / or Edinburgh Rugby.
=============================================================
Murrayfield is in your back garden……..gotta make sense
bottom tiers only for run of the mill games, full thing for Edinburgh Derbies and maybe Celtic/Sevco games.
surely a fan buy out of “the club” sans stadium and a mutually beneficial tenancy deal with SRU would work out to the advantage of both. No?
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
June 18, 2013 at 1:26 pm
How do you see the club getting out of administration.
People seem to think of it as an end in itself (not you) it isn’t. It is temporary respite from being wound up. It is merely a short period where an administrator ca ncome in and try to save the company. That is the important bit, save the company not the business. Saving the company must be seen as an end product which has a viable chance of survival.
I am really struggling to see how that is achieved just now. The only option I can see is a CVA, pu shed through by the foreign liquidator, based on him sacrificing any return he could get for the creditors of the company he is liquidating himself. Surely liquidation of all Hearts assets would be a better option for them.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: June 18, 2013 at 1:26 pm
Murrayfield is in your back garden……..gotta make sense
bottom tiers only for run of the mill games, full thing for Edinburgh Derbies and maybe Celtic/Sevco games.
surely a fan buy out of “the club” sans stadium and a mutually beneficial tenancy deal with SRU would work out to the advantage of both. No?
=================================
That was the plan back in 2004 when Chris Robinson sought to sell Tynecaste to Cala Homes for between £20.5M and £22M. (planning regulations weren’t as tight then) and land was worth something. Hearts debt at the time closely matched the asset value. (the good times 🙂 )
An average 13,000 in Murrayfield isn’t a great prospect for atmosphere, but beggars can’t be choosers so it would have to be an option, even a temporary one.
Incidentally, the SRU were looking to charge £600K a season in 2004 rising by £25K a year at least for the first couple of seasons.
Castofthousands says:
June 18, 2013 at 11:35 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think it is wrong to conclude the email from Bryan about Hassall was about concealing the deal from MIH. It is a matter of course in business that details of deals and funding are concealed for all sorts of reasons. Hassal has St James Place connections so does SDM as he does with Ticketus and the email actually says it was an “open secret”.
SDM said he would ensure RFC was sold to a credible bidder to ensure it continued. One small part of that would have been to ask for confirmation of the source of Whyte’s funding. As of course he would have been aware of deals at Man Utd et al where bank debt was used to leverage the clubs assets to make the purchase. In those instances Man Utd pays down the debt that was used to purchase it. In the RFC case there was no bank but instead Ticketus were used.
Any businessman selling a club he wanted to protect would have checked that it was new equity coming into the club or in fact would have made it a condition in the sale and purchase agreement. He didn’t and should have checked because the business model in operation wasn’t working and was certainly not going to work any better by continuing to carry the Lloyds/Ticketus debt.
MIH are in charge of the conduct of the Big Tax case as per the SPA and don’t forget there are MIH companies still on the hook for a share of the tax liabilities. By why meet CW – why not send the Group Tax manager if they wanted to discuss this matter? What else was discussed – tape please CF. There has to be one – so far SDM is the only one not being looked at by CF – in fact some exploratory defences of him are being floated.
As Auldheid says above the focus should be on the material not on Charlottes motives – I reserve my opinion on the motives for now but we are being treated to some strange narratives.
Gaz says:
June 18, 2013 at 1:39 pm
0 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
June 18, 2013 at 1:26 pm
How do you see the club getting out of administration.
=================================================
Club sold to fans consortium (excluding tynecastle)
If deals can be done to sell players, they will be sold, but unlikely.
New buyers of “club” will probably have admins bin expensive players contracts – or maybe even release everyone of them and take their chances signing a team from scratch.
tynecastle retained by admins/liquidators and rented to club and/or put up for sale to highest bidder.
whats the story with training facilities at Heriot Watt – club or university owned?
that would see best chance of return for creditors (unless fans consortium taking on the club (as it currently stands) offer a better payment spread over X years – unlikely i’d say)
Otherwise it’s liquidation, but i don’t see how that would be a better option for creditors.
slimshady61 says:
June 17, 2013 at 9:32 pm
No Ecobhoy, that is not correct and the example you have chosen proves my point precisely, despite the naysayers on here. Woodward and Bernstein had the Watergate story for a long time but needed corroboration before they could print it. Deep Throat provided the route to corroboration – without him, there would have been no story to print.
“Woodward never took notes when meeting with Felt, but would often type memos of their conversations soon after they talked. Some conversations were so specific or short that no memo was written. Regardless, Felt would not allow Woodward to quote him or identify him as a source. He resisted providing Woodward with new information, preferring to confirm information already known by Woodward or suggest a particular path of investigation”
Slimshady61, corroboration yes, but interestingly, Carl Bernstein was interviewed by Peter Florence for the Hay Festival recently and this was shown on Sky Arts 1 last night. He confirmed the above but pointed out that the work they were doing was exhausting, and as they were both divorced they could spend more time on what, to all intents and purposes, was a “third rate burglary” gone wrong.
They worked nights to dig up as much information as possible Bernstein said that when looking at a photograph of himself back then, he realised he had “ bags under his eyes”.
It was this information, painstakenly assembled, that “Deep Throat” (Mark Felt) corroborated.
See also http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/web/woodstein/deepthroat/
And http://watergate.info/1973/03/19/mccord-letter-to-judge-sirica.html
In any cause and effect situation use proximate cause to examine the result.
PS Just read
ecobhoy says:
June 18, 2013 at 2:00 am
“probably by Felt who may or may not have been Deep Throat”
He was, http://watergate.info/2005/05/31/mark-felt-was-deep-throat.html
Gaz says: June 18, 2013 at 1:39 pm
=============================
Liquidation would get Ukio and UBIG next to nothing, mainly because the current asset values are so low.
Assuming the administrator was able to keep the club afloat during the critical first few weeks, I’d expect him to be able to attract bidders with a CVA.
Taking an illustrative total debt of £30M (Ukio £15M, UBIG £10M HMRC £2M Others £3M) I could see a bid of say £5M being structured as follows:
Ukio would be paid £2.5M for their shares, security and debt attached to the stadium (approx. 50p in the £ on a £5M valuation)
The other £2.5M would be offered to all other creditor at 10p in the £.
Ukio would thus get £2.5M + £1M for their debt and shares
UBIG would get £1M for their debt and shares
HMRC would get £200K
Other creditors would get £300K between them.
Many congratulations to BBC Scotland for standing up to the supine BBC trustees (who have bowed to the blue pound) and issuing this statement;
“We remain of the opinion that due accuracy was achieved. A football club, once incorporated, is indistinguishable in Scots law from its corporate identity. If the club was separate it would need its own constitution, committee members, trustees, etc. Rangers Football Club does not have that because it is incorporated.”
Club = company every time. Rangers are dead, accept that and we can all move on.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: June 18, 2013 at 1:46 pm
Club sold to fans consortium (excluding tynecastle)
Very possible but could work out the opposite way with the Fans group taking ownership of Tynecastle and another buyer getting the shares and running the club, allowing the fans group to buy the club back over time.
If deals can be done to sell players, they will be sold, but unlikely.
agreed, but their seems to be interest from down south (and Sevco) in four youngsters, Walker, Holt, McHattie and Paterson
New buyers of “club” will probably have admins bin expensive players contracts – or maybe even release everyone of them and take their chances signing a team from scratch.
every likelihood of the higher earners being released immediately, Sutton, Hammil, Stevenson, McDonald, but with a 15 point penalty relegation would be more likely than not
tynecastle retained by admins/liquidators and rented to club and/or put up for sale to highest bidder.
possible, but development potential is limited beyond the current configuration
whats the story with training facilities at Heriot Watt – club or university owned?
Hearts only have a lease on it (25 years starting in 2004). It costs them around £300K a year to the University as their contribution to the running of the facilities
that would see best chance of return for creditors (unless fans consortium taking on the club (as it currently stands) offer a better payment spread over X years – unlikely i’d say)
Anyone with a large lump sum up front will have a negotiating advantage with the creditors. The fans group may be able to capitalise the monthly pledges to come up with a comparable sum though. FOH currently have 5,000 monthly pledges. At a £20 average that would give £1.2M a year which is a decent contribution
Otherwise it’s liquidation, but i don’t see how that would be a better option for creditors.
Agreed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22951447
The BBC Trust has ruled that BBC Scotland breached its guidelines on accuracy in reports about the financial collapse of Rangers Football Club – Ltd. (Fixed that for them)
The Trust upheld two complaints that the corporation had been wrong to use the terms “new” and “old” club.
The BBC Trust:
Getting the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers
The BBC exists to serve the public, and its mission is to inform, educate and entertain. The BBC Trust is the governing body of the BBC, and we make sure the BBC delivers that mission.
Led by the Chairman Lord Patten, and consisting of 12 Trustees, the Trust is the guardian of licence fee revenue and of the public interest in the BBC.
The Trust is separate from the Executive Board which is led by the Director-General. The Executive Board is responsible for the operational delivery of BBC services and the direction of BBC editorial and creative output in line with the framework set by the Trust.
Our job is to get the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers.
We set the strategic objectives for the BBC. We have challenged the BBC to:
increase the distinctiveness and quality of output;
improve the value for money provided to licence fee payers;
set new standards of openness and transparency; and
do more to serve all audiences.
We issue a service licence to every BBC service stating what we expect it to deliver and how much it can spend. We set the BBC’s editorial guidelines and protect the BBC’s independence. We monitor performance to ensure that the BBC provides value for money while staying true to its public purposes.
” to set new standards of openness and transparency” – you could not make it up!
The BBC Trust – wouldn’t be another arm of The Establishment would it ?
I can’t believe that BBC Trustee report. Seriously. It’s BS of the highest order…. Take one example
“The Committee noted that assets of that company were sold to a company called The Rangers Football Club Limited (which changed its name from Sevco Scotland Limited in July 2012). The Committee considered that differentiating between these two companies and the football club could potentially make this a complicated story to explain to a wide audience.
The assets were sold to Sevco Scotland (conveniently omitting that the debts weren’t similarly transferred over) which THEN changed its name to The Rangers Football Club Limited. That’s pretty pertinent in the context of this complaint….
easyJambo says:
June 18, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Thanks for that.
It does raise a couple of questions. 1, Is there a secured creditor, who would get everything raised. 2, Would Ukio and UBIG be getting some sort of preference on their debt.
The BBC Trustees cite numerous examples where Duff & Phelps refer to “the club” carrying on blah blah blah, bythely ignoring the fact they were the vendor in this instance.
In other news, The BBC Trust, citing the petshop owner’s opinion, confirms the Norwegian Blue parrot in the Monthy Python sketch was in fact “only resting”….
FFS….
Gaz says:
June 18, 2013 at 2:26 pm
0
0
Rate This
Quantcast
easyJambo says: June 18, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Thanks for that.
It does raise a couple of questions. 1, Is there a secured creditor, who would get everything raised. 2, Would Ukio and UBIG be getting some sort of preference on their debt.
===================================
There are three securities at play with the following ranking.
1) Ukio have a standard security over Tynecastle and other adjacent pieces of land
2) Ukio have a floating charge over all the assets
3) UBIG have a floating charge over all the assets
The likely offers would mean that everything should go to Ukio, but I have a feeling that the offer to the administrator may be structured differently, so that UBIG get something in return for the shareholding and other creditors do receive at least get a token amount.
Page 32/33
The Committee noted how BBC Scotland said it saw the legal relationship between Rangers football club and its “parent company”:
“Lord Nimmo Smith’s reasonings were included in a report for an independent
commission – they are entirely his view, albeit one based on extensive legal
experience. His reasonings do not represent the view of company law.”
Ouch!!
BBC Scotland stating LNS is full of shyte
I don’t think the offer structure really matters does it.
If the holder(s) of the fixed charge / floating charge is(are) owed more than is raised then they get it. I suppose in theory they could forego some of that, but would that be acting in the best interests of their own creditors.
Will they really be in a position to say “No it’s OK we just won’t bother collecting £500,000”.
bogsdollox says:
June 18, 2013 at 1:44 pm
“Any businessman selling a club he wanted to protect would have checked that it was new equity coming into the club or in fact would have made it a condition in the sale and purchase agreement. ”
———————-
I like your analysis bogsdollox. I threw in my interpretation of Charlotte’s post to see what reaction it would get as I wasn’t sure myself.
Charlotte did appear to be inviting us to believe that (S)DM did not know about Ticketus. I found this surprising and suspected that others would also. Having allowed this possibility to simmer in my thoughts I arrived at the possibility that this could be a reason for CW being shafted in the Sevco 5088/Scotland switch. This all assuming that (S)DM was carrying out a masterplan to cleanse Rangers of its debt.
I recognise the narrative you are suggesting and would not wish to be part of a fiction but am willing to risk what little credibility I might have to explore the possibilities. As you say, wider business contacts might easily have alerted (S)DM if CW was indeed trying to hide Ticketus involvement. You go on from the above quote to say :
“He didn’t and should have checked because the business model in operation wasn’t working and was certainly not going to work any better by continuing to carry the Lloyds/Ticketus debt.”
So why didn’t (S)DM make new momey a condition of the SPA? I presume your inference is that he must have known about Ticketus so such a stipulation would have been self defeating.
Not sure why Charlotte is making this point. Two of her posts on 17th May were titled ‘Dont tell Murray’ and ‘What Murray knew’. At the time I wasn’t sure what she was driving at but her recent post seems to have clarified this. The problem is that the ‘clarity’ appears to run counter to perceived wisdom. Either this is an important piece in the jigsaw or a rather large fly in the ointment.
Castofthousands says:
June 18, 2013 at 3:10 pm
————————————
“Sir David Murray knew…” – it’s got a nice ring to it don’t you think? Or even plain simple “David Murray knew”
That after all is the tape we are waiting for with baited breath, Craig.
5. Events Leading up to the Administration
5.1 The information provided below is largely based upon the Company’s records and information provided by the Company’s management, the accuracy of which the Joint Administrators are not in a position to verify. Neither, the Joint Administrators nor Duff & Phelps can be held liable for errors or mis-statement of fact contained therein.
Duff & Phelps’ Engagement
5.2 In January 2011, MCR BC (now part of Duff & Phelps) was engaged by Liberty Capital an investment vehicle, to assist with its negotiations with LBG as part of its intended acquisition of the shareholding in the Company from MIH. An agreement was reached in principle with LBG in April 2011 in respect of the debt that LBG required to be settled upon completion of a sale.
5.3 Liberty Capital is connected to the Company as it is the ultimate controlling party through its ownership of RFC Group.
5.4 In April 2011, MCR BC was requested to attend a meeting between Mr Craig Whyte and the Independent Directors‟ Committee that had been established by the Company to assess parties interested in acquiring the majority of its share capital. Responses were provided by Mr Craig Whyte to the Independent Directors‟ Committee to questions regarding Liberty Capital’s net assets, ability to fund the proposed acquisition and make additional funds available to the Company for various post-acquisition purposes and its intended general post-acquisition strategy. Due diligence in relation to the acquisition was undertaken for Liberty Capital by Saffery Champness.
5.5 In May 2011, the majority shareholding of the Company was acquired by RFC Group which was an entity ultimately controlled by Liberty Capital.
5.6 Around this time, it is understood that Ticketus advanced £20.3m to a Collyer Bristow client account in the name of RFC Group in consideration of future season ticket revenue from the Club of approximately £25.4m. The advance was to be repaid from the proceeds of season ticket revenue for the 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 seasons.
5.7 Following the purchase in May 2011, MCR BC was engaged by Liberty Capital to provide advice to the Company’s management team. This involved assisting in the preparation of a short term cash flow forecast review, reviewing the Company’s organisational staff structure and liaising with HMRC on behalf of the Company in respect of the Small Tax Case.
5.8 MCR BC provided HMRC with a formal update on 13 June 2011, which included an overview of the Company’s projected working capital shortfall in the following 3 months (as identified by the short term cash flow forecast review), an overview of the Company’s financial position and an assessment that the Company would be unable to continue to trade in the medium term without the introduction of third party funds or shareholder support. Given this position, an offer of an immediate payment on account of £200,000 was proposed to HMRC and a request made for further time to assess possible new sources of income for the Company to allow time to formulate a proposal to HMRC relating to the balance of the Company’s Small Tax Case liability.
Names of Joint Administrators:
Paul John Clark (“Paul Clark”)
David John Whitehouse (“David Whitehouse”)
Date of Appointment: 14 February 2012
Date of Report: 5 April 2012
Appointed by:
Court Reference The Court of Session
Parliament House Parliament Square Edinburgh Scotland EH1 1RQ
P221/12
__
Worthwhile going back – `Official` Creditors Reports 5 April 12
Excerpts:
Note 5.2 – “An agreement was reached in principle with LBG in April 2011 in respect of the debt that LBG required to be settled upon completion of a sale.”
[what was the `agreement` on sale completion – and why noted as `in principle` ?]
So an `in principal` `agreement`? was known aforehand by all parties?
Not the way one finalises a deal for 20m plus – is it?
Sam says:
June 18, 2013 at 3:03 pm
13 0 Rate This
Page 32/33
The Committee noted how BBC Scotland said it saw the legal relationship between Rangers football club and its “parent company”:
“Lord Nimmo Smith’s reasonings were included in a report for an independent
commission – they are entirely his view, albeit one based on extensive legal
experience. His reasonings do not represent the view of company law.”
Ouch!!
BBC Scotland stating LNS is full of shyte
————
That’s some report. I had no idea that two complainants could unleash such a wailing and gnashing of teeth at the BBC! So because of certain sensitivities, and the subject being awfully difficult to understand, we’ll just say it’s the same thing, only different 🙂
Yes, well done BBC Scotland for sticking to factual accuracy and not serving up fudge cake. Perhaps a few creditors will now start complaining to the BBC Trust about the line of reasoning presented by the ESC? This could run and run.
have any creditors complained about anything so far ??
I watched Scotland Tonight last night and the subject was concerning the plight of Hearts. Archie Mac Pherson was on the panel and I lost count of how many times he mentioned the old club Rangers. He also basically had the opinion that Scotland’s top football league required all the top clubs (institutions) had to remain no matter what or the game was in real trouble. So forget sporting integrity, run your club without financial prudence, (basically pay players you cannot afford, realistically cheat if you want) and stay in the top league.
So how come a sports journalist like Archie with uncountable years of valuable experience in the field of his employment has a different mindset or opinion to me. I am simply a football fan who only wants Scottish football to be a fair sport and run properly to set as an example for future generations. Is Archie the expert right or the ordinary football fan?.
Campbell Ogilvie does not carry out his role properly and as such IMO has not a sporting Integrity bone in his body. He played his part in the downfall of Rangers (and has abused his position in trying to keep them alive by changing rules to suit), he was also employed at Hearts as an administrator (sorry the worlds best administrator) for a few years which IMO has not helped Hearts. I wonder if he will put as much effort in trying to save Hearts as he did Rangers,not likely as he has shares in Rangers (sorry he transferred them to his wife). So let us see how this pans out.
Sam says:
June 18, 2013 at 3:03 pm
13 0 Rate This
Page 32/33
The Committee noted how BBC Scotland said it saw the legal relationship between Rangers football club and its “parent company”:
“Lord Nimmo Smith’s… His reasonings do not represent the view of company law.”
==========================
Yes indeed, brave stance from BBC Scotland.
If I was making the above opinion – in writing – about a senior judge’s competency to interpret company law I would have suggested;
“Allegedly, his reasonings do not represent the view of company law, allegedly…allegedly.” 😉
Is the BBC Scotland comment a wee bit libelous…allegedly ? 🙄
pau1mart1n says:
June 18, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Could an individual, or group, purchase the debt of a low level (in monetary terms) creditor and then make representations to the relevant authorities as a creditor?
From the BBC website:
“BBC Scotland… said: “A football club, once incorporated, is indistinguishable in Scots law from its corporate identity.
“If the club was separate it would need its own constitution, committee members, trustees, etc.
“Rangers Football Club does not have that because it is incorporated.”
BBC Scotland’s submission said that an implication of the ESC ruling could be that future reporting, in order to achieve a “common standard”, may have to differentiate “between the business elements of a club’s activities and its footballing activities”.
It added: “This, we believe, would add layers of complexity to reporting that would not be to the benefit of clear reportage or enhance the understanding of such issues by our audiences.”
———————————————————
I haven’t a clue what they mean. Can anyone spell it out in and easy-to-understand summary?
From the BBC website:
“BBC Scotland… said: “A football club, once incorporated, is indistinguishable in Scots law from its corporate identity.
“If the club was separate it would need its own constitution, committee members, trustees, etc.
“Rangers Football Club does not have that because it is incorporated.”
BBC Scotland’s submission said that an implication of the ESC ruling could be that future reporting, in order to achieve a “common standard”, may have to differentiate “between the business elements of a club’s activities and its footballing activities”.
It added: “This, we believe, would add layers of complexity to reporting that would not be to the benefit of clear reportage or enhance the understanding of such issues by our audiences.”
———————————————————
I haven’t a clue what they mean. Can anyone spell it out in an easy-to-understand summary?
StevieBC says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:05 pm
———————————————————————–
But what’s libelous? if someone thinks Lord Nimmo Smith is a complete corrupt crook part of a wholesale corrupt Scottish Judicial system protecting a total corrupt Scottish Football Association, then they say it and stand by their thoughts.
Gregory Ioannidis @LawTop20 24m
My Report on Rangers was completed today and it will be published later this year in a refereed legal journal. Conclusions are firm & solid.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
Gregory Ioannidis @LawTop20 22m
I conclude that because of the initial structure & incorporation of the company, there can now be no continuation of the same entity.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
TW says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:12 pm
“I haven’t a clue what they mean. Can anyone spell it out in an easy-to-understand summary?”
——————-
I’ll have a bash TW. I only glossed over the BBC report but my thinking is this.
BBC say the club and company are effectively the same thing. In the report they accepted that when talking about football only stories they just refer to ‘Rangers’ to keep it simple. When referring to matters outwith the field of play, they may use ‘old Rangers’ and ‘new Rangers’ to differentiate between the two different incarnations. They said that because this stuff is a bit complicated they may have strayed over the line a couple of times and perhaps mentioned old/new Rangers when maybe (arguably) just ‘Rangers’ would have been sufficient. They didn’t do it deliberately to confuse the public, it was just a minor misjudgement. Fundamentally the BBC recognise there is a distinction between the two incarnations and will continue to recognise this distinction outwith the actual field of play.
Thats you properly confused now.
Sam says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:19 pm
StevieBC says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:05 pm
———————————————————————–
But what’s libelous? if someone thinks Lord Nimmo Smith is a complete corrupt crook part of a wholesale corrupt Scottish Judicial system protecting a total corrupt Scottish Football Association, then they say it and stand by their thoughts.
==============================
I don’t disagree with the sentiment at all, re: allegations of corruption.
The point I am making is that a publicly funded BBC Scotland appears to have cast an aspersion over a judge wrt company law. It just seemed that their wording – in a publicly available document – could have been more tactful – but would still get the message across.
In theory an assignation of a credtor’s rights could be made, Hampdenbore, but what would be the point of acquiring such an assignation? BDO were appointed as Liquidators at the instance of HMRC and it strikes me as ingenuous to consider that BDO will allow vexatious interventions by unsecured relatively minor creditors or their assignees or successors.
Oh well, it happens other places too. Fair to say it’s all getting very … messy … in Spain. I suppose he could argue it was brand ‘Messi’ that owes the tax, not the player. In Scotland, I reckon he could perhaps keep the cash but claim no financial benefit 😀
———————
Messi fraud case ‘to be extended’
PA Sport
tirsdag den 18. juni 2013
Football – Liga
The tax authorities’ investigation into Barcelona forward Lionel Messi’s alleged fraud could include activity up until 2012.
The 25-year-old and his father Jorge Messi were last week the subject of a lawsuit filed by tax authorities for three allegations of crimes relating to public finance and income tax for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009.
EFE report that the investigation by the tax authorities for criminal and civil responsibility over the sale between 2006 and 2009 of the Argentine footballer’s image rights to third parties, may be extended through 2010, 2011 and 2012 once the current tax year has ended.
Until then, Messi and his father have the opportunity to pay any outstanding funds through supplementary declaration.
The lawsuit, which reportedly has Messi and his father accused of defrauding the state out of a total of €4m (£3.4m), is still waiting to be declared admissible by a court judge.
The public prosecutor alleges that Jorge Messi is responsible for the initialisation of the scheme, with AS reporting if he were to take full responsibility, the case against Lionel Messi would be archived.
Read the original article on Football Espana – The ultimate website for English-speaking fans of Spanish football.
Thanks CoT…but that means the BBC say the club and company are effectively the same thing, although one has an old/new dimension and the other doesn’t? It’s not you that’s confusing me, it’s the BBC’s statement. The one part of it I do get is the last bit, ie
“This, we believe, would add layers of complexity to reporting that would not be to the benefit of clear reportage or enhance the understanding of such issues by our audiences.”
Da** straight.
manandboy says:
June 18, 2013 at 2:22 pm
…………………………………
“The BBC Trust – wouldn’t be another arm of The Establishment would it ?”
I doubt it….Lord Patten…….whilst his background confirms he is not permitted to be prime minister…if you get my drift…was also responsible for changing the Norn Irish Police force….which upset a few of the establishment…
StevieBC says:
June 18, 2013 at 5:34 pm
————————————————-
Why should they be tactful? Or not disclose their statements for a public report?
BBC Scotland has told it like it is.
LNS is the problem not BBC Scotland.
slimshady61 says:
June 18, 2013 at 3:53 pm
““Sir David Murray knew…” – it’s got a nice ring to it don’t you think? Or even plain simple “David Murray knew””
———————
Slim, I know you are more than a bit sceptical concerning Charlotte’s motives and I commend this outlook since if we all jumped on the bandwagon we could easily get carried away with ourselves. However at the risk of being pedantic and appearing defensive, I feel I should clarify the information I was referring to. Charlotte didn’t use the term ‘Sir’ David Murray. Her tweets concerning this aspect only appear below :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142046684/dont-tell-murray
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142055727/what-murray-knew
I think any attempt to squeeze (S)DM off the hook would be robustly countered. What I’m saying is that we should consider all possibilities however unlikely. Sometimes when you give in to considering something preposterous, two things can happen.
1. You start to think that it wasn’t such a wild idea after all and give it further consideration.
2. You realise your gut instinct was right all along and the whole concept is delusional.
I’m just putting myself in a place that will allow that mechanism to kick in. bogsdollox provided a considered point of view that has got me thinking. The idea that (S)DM didn’t know about CW’s Ticketus deal is difficult to countenance. Yet that is what Charlotte implied and recently stated explicitly as far as I can make out. When you’re dealing with unknowns the language isn’t always concise since you’re never quite sure what you should be thinking. However that is no reason for not thinking in the first place.
I’m not at all convinced that Charlotte is CW. I have previously (under this cognomen and one other) stated why this theory was not entirely consistent for me. If I’m wrong then I’ll be sent down to the big fire. Thats not going to stop me voicing my opinion. If we all keep schtum for fear of being wrong the SMSM have won. I’m here to speculate and investigate and have great fun doing so. I don’t have any agendas (I am a fan of justice I must concede), no stake in any outcomes and no sharp cutting devices to grind. If Charlotte is CW as you seem entirely convinced of then I’d have to thank him for providing the stuff on the Eufa licence that Auldheid (and others) had been cogitating upon for some time. If Charlotte, whoever she is wants to shower us with interesting pieces of information then I’ll put up with the ignomony of being called a fool when it turns out she is CW.