The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !

Bybroganrogantrevinoandhogan

The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !

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?

 

About the author

broganrogantrevinoandhogan author

Boot wearing football, sport & total nonsense fan-- Gourmet, Bon Viveur and eedgit! - Oh and I write a bit occasionally!

4,181 Comments so far

pau1mart1nPosted on10:40 am - Jun 29, 2013


if its a made up plate, why not RFC154?
or are question marks not allowed…………….

View Comment

GazPosted on10:41 am - Jun 29, 2013


ForresDee says:
June 29, 2013 at 10:00 am

I hear what you are saying and agree. However going back decades happened before Green. It happened at the CIS cup final 2011. The singing of “banned” songs was blatant and it was throughout the game. The real problem came when the Justice Minister and the ACC (now acting Chief Constable) both praised the support after the game rather than denouncing them for what had happened.

I agree that green has emboldened them, he started with his famous “{insert TSFM banned word here} against Rangers” interview and carried on from there. Playing to them in order to sell tickets and shares, blatantly rallying them with a perception of being the victims. He did it for profit and it worked.

Green publicly attacked anyone he wanted, called them anything he wanted. Nothing meaningful was done. The club continues to do it, they need the money so they do what they need to do and say what they need to say. Any small sign of change, of humility of reconciliation is met with the fans crying No, we will not forgive and we will not forget.

Here’s the thing, I do not seek their forgiveness, it was they who were in the wrong and I have no desire to forget that.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:02 am - Jun 29, 2013


I have noticed a few posters raise the issue of the interim accounts submitted by RIFC Plc on 4/03/2013 when the company was only floated on 19/12/2012. The interim results cover the seven-month period from incorporation to 31 December 2012. Posters have argued, correctly, that these accounts must include material from TRFCL and argue this is a ‘con’.

Well it certainly is a sleight-of-hand but may well be allowable under AIM Rules – so let’s see the justification for it as presented to AIM by Deloitte LLP, Chartered Accountants and Statutory Auditor, Glasgow, on 4/03/2013.

Their report is headed:
Condensed consolidated Income Statement
For the 7 month period from incorporation to 31 December 2012

The key word is ‘consolidated’ and this is explained at:
2. Significant Accounting Policies – Basis of consolidation

‘The Group’s condensed set of financial statements incorporates the financial information of Rangers International Football Club plc and entities controlled by the Company (its subsidiaries) for the accounting period from incorporation on 29 May 2012 until 31 December 2012 through the application of merger accounting.

‘Under these principles the financial statements of the Group have been prepared by combining the results of the combining entities for the interim period under review. Control is achieved where the Company has the power to govern the financial and operating policies of an investee entity so as to obtain benefit from its activities. All intra-group transactions, balances, income and expenses are eliminated on consolidation.’

The problem I have with the above is the phrase: ‘Control is achieved where the Company has the power to govern the financial and operating policies of an investee entity’ where I assume ‘Company’ = RIFC Plc and ‘investee entity’ = TRFCL. How can RIFC Plc ‘govern’ and therefor ‘control’ TRFCL before RIFC Plc has been incorporated on 16/11/2012 or floated on AIM on 19/12/2012? I readily admit I am neither an account nor a lawyer so perhaps my commonsense approach is legal nonsense.

The following para in the Auditor’s report is useful when considering the above:

General Information
‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd (RFCL) was incorporated on 29 May 2012 and on 14 June 2012 purchased the trade and assets of the former Rangers Football Club plc which had been placed in liquidation. On 7 December 2012 Rangers International Football Club plc (RIFC) was created and floated on the Alternate Investment Market, incorporating in its Group The Rangers Football Club Ltd, the existing shares of which were swapped on a one for one basis with those of RIFC. Transactions relating to both The Rangers Football Club Ltd and Rangers International Football Club plc are hereafter referred to as the Group where the transactions or reference is not specific to a distinct legal entity.’

And the following para by the auditor is also interesting not least because of the mention of the audited statement due on 30/06/2013. Especially when Companies House states that the next accounts due for RIFC Plc is 16/05/2014. I realise there are different reporting requirements between AIM and Companies House but it looks to me as though there will continue to be an element of ‘consolidation’ at least in any AIM ‘accounts’ which are posted for some time.

1. Basis of Preparation
‘The condensed set of financial statements has been prepared using accounting policies consistent with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) as adopted by the European Union. The same accounting policies, presentation and methods of computation are followed in the condensed set of financial statements as would be applied if the Group’s annual audited financial statements were being prepared.

‘The first annual audited financial statements will be prepared for the period to 30 June 2013. While the financial figures included in this half-yearly report have been prepared in accordance with IFRSs applicable to interim periods, this half-yearly report does not contain sufficient information to constitute an interim financial report as that term is defined in IAS 34.’

View Comment

SamPosted on11:05 am - Jun 29, 2013


Hoopy 7 says:
June 29, 2013 at 10:32 am
————————————————————————-

The former Solicitor Doncaster = Complete nonsensical gibberish re Scotsman article.

View Comment

SamPosted on11:20 am - Jun 29, 2013


Shareholder

No of Ordinary Shares

Percentage

Charles Green

5,000,200

14.96%

Blue Pitch Holding

4,000,000

11.97%

Mike Ashley

3,000,000

8.98%

Margarita Funds Holding Trust

2,600,000

7.78%

Richard Hughes

2,200,000

6.58%

Imran Ahmad

2,200,000

6.58%

Craig Mather

1,800,000

5.39%

Norne Anstalt

1,200,000

3.59%

Rangers International Football Club plc – the holding company of the group following admission

FFW Secretaries Limited – 100%

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:24 am - Jun 29, 2013


paulmac2 says:

June 29, 2013 at 10:32 am

1

0

Rate This

Auldheid says:
June 29, 2013 at 10:28 am
…………………………….

Willit be based on audited accounts…or on trusting what they are told by the club?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well it clearly cannot be audited accounts passed by an AGM as 8.11 requires. There is a bit under 8.12 that allows for exceptional dispensation where a club cannot provide historical records but The Rangers did produce Interim Accounts and it is these plus any update since that are most relevant for all intents and purposes. So that leaves 8.15 that allows a licence in the specific circumstances of insolvency.

What is interesting is that 8.15 gives Licensing Committee the power to set conditions on licensing (a power I think should apply whether a club has been insolvent or not btw) so the question will be are the LC happy enough with what they have been told by The Rangers to grant an unconditional licence or not.

Then it gets interesting because the SFA are committed to making specific information – Turnover etc- public and this is where they are being clever in a sense. We all know by now that the SFA have worked on a trust sysytem and do not drill dowm too far to check what clubs tell them. Well the obvious answer is that they should, but what they are doing here is telling clubs that if they give misleading information (porkies) the SFA will publish what clubs tell them and if it is porkies it is the club that is responsible not the SFA.
It is a step in the right direction given the resource implications of drilling down for every club but if a club is desperate enough to lie it will , and to hell with the consequences for everyone else just because that is where they are heading.

Another interesting thought is that this new approach suggests that the SFA have been told porkies in the past, yes it is possible (<—irony) and are trying to protect themselves from them.

And why not?

View Comment

SamPosted on12:13 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Meanwhile RIFCL Major Shareholder;

Mr. Rafat Ali Rizvi, a British-Singaporean businessman, who has been convicted in Indonesia for grand corruption and is wanted by Interpol.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on12:28 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Are we due any financial words of wisdom from Sir Walter of Cardigan shortly mapping out the comming season ,what Allys war chest will be so he can start planning for the future,what the plans are for the stadium ,murray [no name change yet,what happened to last years season book offer] parks future and last but not least what is the club giving the fans as a reward for their loyalty over the last season ,exciting times ahead at the Penny Arcade.

View Comment

iceman63Posted on12:38 pm - Jun 29, 2013


CF will continue in her haphazard way to provide the documentary evidence of the wide scale corruption and complicity of all clubs and all governing bodies in Scottish football and in the SMSM as regards the continual culture of cheating and systemic bias towards Rangers – and there will never be any response as those who can respond – in both the governing bodies and clubs of Scottish football, and in the SMSM – are all complicit.

Scottish football has always been systematically corrupt and biased: evidence of this goes back to the 1920’s and possibly even earlier.The collapse of Rangers and the rise of the Internet has served to make all of the evidence of this, over years and decades, available to those who seek to find it.

That information allows us not to expect or exact justice – there are no mechanisms available that can achieve that against the forces determined to continue their culture of cheating and corruption unabated. It does allow us to condemn them with impunity. You can now safely call virtually everyone associated with Scottish football governance corrupt and conflicted in any public forum and there will be no legal redress – as the information to back up your allegation exists and those you attack will not seek to have any legal action which would bring this evidence to a wider public.

You can also spread as widely as you can the information contained in the CF leaks to those of your acquaintance and by word of mouth undermine the credibility of those who run the game directly to the populous without the use of press and TV who are opting to cover up the truth.

Finally you can abandon all interest in Scottish football, stop buying products or attending or even watching games and stop buying any Scottish papers.

The only real hope is the collapse of Rangers mark 2 – mid season and the chaos that this creates forcing some kind of official response, or ideally the complete collapse of the SPFL and SFA, so that the game would have to be rebuilt from scratch with entirely new governing structures.

I personally think this latter is unlikely , not because I don’t believe The Rangers will collapse but because I believe that that collapse will be handled and subverted in such a way as to ensure some kind of Rangers continues.

It has survived liquidation, and annihilation in some form – a repeat of the same process will be put in place and backed all the way by those corrupt bodies which run our game to the cheering and deception and lies perpetrated by our so called press and media.

View Comment

CarntynePosted on12:42 pm - Jun 29, 2013


john clarke says:
June 28, 2013 at 10:16 pm

Doncaster will , I think get the CEO job. Longmuir will not.
Regan will carry on at the SFA until the agitation to remove him begins.
======================================================

Given their track record, I see no reason to believe that the SFA will do the right thing.

It doesn’t matter how much agitation is leveled against them, Regan will continue as before.

After all, Campbell Ogilvie is still President of the SFA, in spite of all the events of the last two years.

I

View Comment

CarntynePosted on12:43 pm - Jun 29, 2013


john clarke says:
June 28, 2013 at 10:16 pm

Doncaster will , I think get the CEO job. Longmuir will not.
Regan will carry on at the SFA until the agitation to remove him begins.
======================================================

Given their track record, I see no reason to believe that the SFA will do the right thing.

It doesn’t matter how much agitation is leveled against them, Regan will continue as before.

After all, Campbell Ogilvie is still President of the SFA, in spite of all the events of the last two years.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on12:51 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Sam says:
June 29, 2013 at 12:13 pm

Meanwhile RIFCL Major Shareholder; Mr. Rafat Ali Rizvi, a British-Singaporean businessman, who has been convicted in Indonesia for grand corruption and is wanted by Interpol.
=====================================================================

Sam sorry to be a bit pedantic but I think it’s helpful to get the terminology correct as the spivs love to confuse us.

Firstly I doubt if Rizvi has a single share in his name although he may well be a shareholder ‘fronted’ by a trust or investment vehicle. However, we just don’t know.

However, if he is a beneficial shareholder, he could only be/have been so in TRFCL or RIFC Plc because RIFCL doesn’t actually exist as a company.

What we do know is that the taped conversation between CW, Ahmad and Stockbridge clearly points to money going from Rizvi to Ahmad. But, and this is an important point, even if that transaction was concluded it might not have been to purchase shares. I tend to believe it could have been an investment loan to purchase the Rangers assets from D&P with a debenture issued by either Sevco 5088 or Sevco Scotland and guaranteed against Ibrox and Murray Park.

The other thing is timing because the taped conversation was in May and the recent CF email was dated 9 May 2012 before RIFC Plc came into existence.

But there is so much that we don’t actually know that I believe informed speculation has a part to play as it might help us find answers.

View Comment

TroyblainPosted on12:51 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Doncaster and Regan are hopeless and it feels as though they were brought here to oversee a chapter in Scottish footballs history, unbeknown to them.

they are devoid of ideas, I had hopes for Regan but i guess picking up money for nothing is more important than having any morals.

remember at the start, tweetin all the time , transparency was his catchphrase.

then he fell silent.

View Comment

SamPosted on12:54 pm - Jun 29, 2013


iceman63 says:
June 29, 2013 at 12:38 pm
————————————————————-

An article, from 2010, on the website owned by Rizvi, also mentions that a company
called Greenland Ltd is connected to him.

View Comment

SamPosted on1:00 pm - Jun 29, 2013


ecobhoy says:
June 29, 2013 at 12:51 pm
————————————————————————

Yeah, sure these counts will do everything by the book!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:06 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Sam says:
June 29, 2013 at 12:54 pm

iceman63 says:
June 29, 2013 at 12:38 pm
————————————————————-
An article, from 2010, on the website owned by Rizvi, also mentions that a company
called Greenland Ltd is connected to him.
————————————————————————————-

Do you have a link for the website/article?

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on1:13 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Re: the accounts due on 30 June 2013.
Will these accounts be independently audited?
Will the accounts contain or infer the ST income for season 13/14?
How will the income from Puma and other sponsors be accounted for?
Are these accounts for the club or it’s current holding company to which it is indebted?

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on1:21 pm - Jun 29, 2013


davythelotion says:
June 29, 2013 at 1:13 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is an AIM requirement to have the accounts independently audited.

The season ticket money should not be recognised as income as the season will not have started and nothing will have been done to earn the money

Not sure bout Puma etc but presumably income will be recognised over the life of the contract.

The accounts for Holdco will be consolidated ones and will include the results of the club.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:36 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Drew Peacock says:
June 29, 2013 at 1:21 pm

The accounts for Holdco will be consolidated ones and will include the results of the club.
==========================================================

Don’t know if you read my post at June 29, 2013 at 11:02 am on consolidation.

The bit that puzzles me is how can RIFC Plc use the TRFCL figures as part of a consolidation exercise when my reading of it is that RIFC Plc can only do this when it ‘controls’ the other company and it seems logical to think that it can only have contol of a subsidiary from the point the RIFC Plc actually comes into existence as a legal entity.

Prior to that I can’t figure but no doubt there will be a rule somewhere that allows it.

View Comment

SamPosted on1:38 pm - Jun 29, 2013


New Criminal Cases Announced As Bank Century Probe Comes to Life
By webadmin on 7:14 pm June 8, 2012.

Ezra Sihite

In the latest sign of new life in the stalled probe into the Bank Century scandal, the National Police said on Wednesday that they were ready to send new cases linked to the lender’s 2008 bailout to prosecutors, including fresh charges against the bank’s former co-owner, Robert Tantular.

Speaking at a hearing at the House of Representatives, Comr. Gen. Sutarman, the National Police’s chief of detectives, said his office had been working on 40 cases linked to the collapse, including 14 already brought to court and seven pending trial.

Sutarman told the hearing, which was presided over by House Deputy Speaker Priyo Budi Santoso, that of the remaining 19 cases under police investigation, three would be sent to the prosecutors’ office.

The three-star police general said that Tantular would likely face more charges.

“We have received protests from Robert Tantular’s representatives,” Sutarman said. “According to them, the case [against Tantular] is over, but there is new evidence that leads to fresh charges.”

Sutarman said Tantular had refused to sign off on investigation dossiers and had challenged the police’s move to forward the case to prosecutors.

“But like it or not, [Tantular] will face prosecution,” he said.

The police said Tantular would face charges of fraud and banking crimes but declined to elaborate.

A series of illicit transactions at Bank Century were said to have caused the bank’s collapse. The government later took over the bank after intervening with a Rp 6.7 trillion ($723.6 million) bailout. The bank was later renamed Bank Mutiara.

Tantular is already in jail for issuing $220 million in fraudulent loans and embezzling depositors’ money.

The police statement was the second in as many weeks that has breathed fresh life into the case, which has been in limbo for more than two years.

The bank collapse and bailout turned into a political fiasco, with many politicians claiming corruption was involved. Critics of the bailout have called for former Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati and Vice President Boediono, who then headed the central bank, to be held accountable.

Parallel probes by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the Attorney General’s Office and the police have found banking violations but no indications thus far of corruption in the bailout.

However, KPK spokesman Johan Budi told reporters last week that antigraft investigators had presented fresh evidence during an internal case review.

“We have new developments on the case,” he was quoted as saying.

The House will stage separate hearings with the KPK and the AGO later this week.

Priyo, a politician from the Golkar Party, which has been critical of the bailout, said the police should also focus on retrieving Bank Century assets stashed oversees.

“We want to hear progress on the Bank Century case regarding the asset seizure as well as the criminal investigation,” he said, adding that he appreciated the speed and effort of the investigation so far.

The assets include Rp 3.5 trillion ($392 million) that was moved to Hong Kong by Bank Century’s fugitive former co-owners, Saudi Arabian national Hesham al Warraq and British citizen Rafat Ali Rizvi, before the state bailed out the bank in 2008.

Al Warraq and Rizvi were convicted in absentia for embezzlement, a step the government said was required to bring the frozen assets back to Indonesia.

On Friday, Golkar legislator Bambang Soesatyo also said the KPK was holding in its custody a key witness, Miranda Goeltom, the former senior deputy governor at the central bank, Bank Indonesia.

Miranda is under KPK investigation for a Rp 20 billion bribery scandal surrounding her appointment to the central bank post in 2004.

After Miranda was appointed, Bank Indonesia gave the go-ahead for Bank Century to be formed through the merger of three smaller lenders that were on the verge of collapse.

“The public is hoping that Miranda’s arrest can shed light on [the Century scandal],” Bambang said. “Although several people have been jailed, the case leaves so many questions that the KPK must answer to fulfill people’s sense of justice.”

The House had earlier said that Miranda played a crucial role in Bank Century’s collapse, accusing her of overlooking illicit activities at the bank.

House Deputy Speaker Pramono Anung, from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), also said that “the KPK holds the key to unravelling the [Bank] Century case.”

KPK chairman Abraham Samad previously pledged to resolve major corruption scandals, including the Bank Century case, before his first year in office ended, which would be this December.

View Comment

Drew PeacockPosted on1:42 pm - Jun 29, 2013


ecobhoy says:
June 29, 2013 at 1:36 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I’m not sure of the exact rule but it makes sense to consolidate TRFC results to give the investors sight of the performance of the club that ultimately underlies their investment in the Plc.

View Comment

nickmcguinnessPosted on1:49 pm - Jun 29, 2013


ecobhoy at 12:51pm:

RE: That payment demad for Asia Credit Corporation; Rizvi was arranging with Ahmad for £600,000 “commission” to be wired to his sidekick, Chris Morgan.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this sum was not paid in full and that this later led to the threats from another of Rizvi’s companies, Orlit Enterprises, to serve a Winding Up Order on Spivco.
I think Charlotte knows exactly what is going on here.

View Comment

SamPosted on1:49 pm - Jun 29, 2013


RIFCL Major Shareholder –

Rafat Ali Rizvi v Ing Bank NV Hong Kong Branch
[2011] SGHC 114

Suit No: OSB No. 28 of 2009/D (Registrar’s Appeal No.393 of 2009/W)
Decision Date: 9 May 2011
Court: High Court
Coram: Kan Ting Chiu J
Counsel: Philip Ling (Wong Tan & Molly Lim LLC) for the plaintiff; Rebecca Chew, Paul Ng and Goh Su Sian (Rajah & Tann LLP) for the defendant.

Subject Area / Catchwords

Insolvency Law – Bankruptcy – Statutory Demand

9 May 2011

Judgment reserved.

Kan Ting Chiu J:

Background

1 The plaintiff, Rafat Ali Rizvi, was served with a statutory demand issued by the defendant, Ing Bank NV Hong Kong Branch. The plaintiff disputed the validity of the statutory demand and sought to set it aside. However, as he was out of time, he had to apply for an order to extend time as well as order to set aside the statutory demand. When the applications came before an Assistant Registrar (“AR”), both were dismissed and the plaintiff is appealing against those orders.

2 The plaintiff, a British citizen and a Singapore Employment Pass holder, is the sole shareholder and ultimate beneficial owner of Arlington Assets Investments Ltd (“AAIL”), a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”). The defendant is the Hong Kong branch of Ing Bank, NV AAIL is a customer of the defendant. The defendant had granted credit facilities to AAIL up to a maximum limit of US$180 million. The plaintiff had executed a continuing personal guarantee in favour of the defendant to secure the facilities.

The statutory demand

3 The defendant issued a statutory demand dated 25 May 2009 on the plaintiff under s 62 of the Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20. 2009 Rev Ed) (“BA”) for the sums of US$117,143,874, €2,528,234.96, S$16,117,571.11 and ¥1,976,752,632 owing under the facilities granted by the defendant to AAIL (All references to sections refer to the BA.)

The application for extension of time

4 Under r 97(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed) (“BR”), the plaintiff had to apply to set aside the statutory demand within 14 days from the service of the statutory demand on him. (All references to rules refer to the BR.) When the plaintiff filed his application on 6 July 2009, he was eight days out of time. However, r 97(3) provides that:

The court may, upon the application of the debtor, allow the debtor an extension of time to make his application to set aside the statutory demand.

5 In support of his application to extend time, the plaintiff stated that he was not in Singapore when the statutory demand was served by being posted on the main door of his Singapore residence. He claimed that he was in the United Kingdom between 27 May 2009 and 26 June 2009. He explained that he was unable to return to Singapore as he had to consult his English solicitors on the statutory demand served on him and other statutory demands that were served on AAIL, and he also had to attend to his aged father who was undergoing treatment in the United Kingdom.

6 The defendant’s response was that the plaintiff did not deserve an extension of time because he did not produce evidence of his being in the United Kingdom, and that in any event, he was, by his account, back in Singapore three days before the dateline for filing the application to set aside the statutory demand.

The application to set aside the statutory demand

7 In the appeal, the plaintiff did not pursue all the arguments he made before the AR and submitted that the statutory demand should be set aside on the grounds that[note: 1]:

(a)
that the defendant had not satisfied the requirements of s 61(1) of the BA;

(b)
the debt is disputed on substantial grounds;

(c)
the debtor has a valid counterclaim and set-off which is equivalent to or exceeds the amount of the debt.

I shall refer to these grounds as grounds (a), (b) and (c) and consider each in turn.

Ground (a) – non-satisfaction of s 61(1) of the BA

8 The plaintiff directed his submissions to the requirements of s 61(1)(d):

61. —(1) No bankruptcy application shall be made to the court in respect of any debt or debts unless at the time the application is made —

(d)where the debt or each of the debts is incurred outside Singapore, such debt is payable by the debtor to the applicant creditor by virtue of a judgment or an award which is enforceable by execution in Singapore.

9 The plaintiff’s argument was that as the debt was incurred outside Singapore, and that no judgment or award obtained on the debt which is enforceable by execution in Singapore, the statutory demand should be set aside.

10 Section 61(1)(d) was enacted for a specific purpose. Its introduction into s 61(1) was recounted by the Court of Appeal in AmBank (M) Bhd v Yong Kim Yoong Raymond [2009] 2 SLR(R) 659 (“AmBank v Yong”) and I will not repeat the complete narration of its gestation. To put it very briefly, it started at the proceedings of the Select Committee on the Bankruptcy Bill. The Select Committee received a submission from an associate professor of law who expressed concern over the extra-territorial application of the criminal provisions in the BA. The Select Committee agreed with the concern and revised the proposed provisions to exclude debts incurred outside Singapore unless they are incorporated in judgments or awards which are enforceable in Singapore.

11 The Court of Appeal concluded at [24]:

[T]he objective of s 61(1)(d) was to give some added measure of protection, in the light of the far-reaching amendments to the bankruptcy regime brought about by the enactment of BA 1995, to persons with property in Singapore against bankruptcy proceedings based on debts incurred outside Singapore. A preliminary requirement that such debts have a nexus with Singapore through “a judgment or award which is enforceable by execution in Singapore” must first and foremost be satisfied. It is also abundantly clear that s 61(1)(d) has purely local roots and has neither been adopted nor adapted from the UK Insolvency Act.

12 As s 61(1)(d) is unique to the BA, special care should be taken in construing it. The provision refers specifically to the place where a debt is incurred, and separates them into two categories, debts incurred in Singapore and debts incurred outside Singapore. The starting point is the existence of a debt. That is an amount owing by one party to another, whether or not it is repayable immediately. In other words, the debt is a chose in action, but not necessarily a cause of action. The place where the debt is incurred is the place at which the debt came into existence. In the present case where the defendant bank granted credit facilities to AAIL, it would be the place of AAIL’s account. Each time AAIL operated the account on credit, a debt was incurred. If the account was in Hong Kong, the debts were incurred in Hong Kong, and if the account was in Singapore, the debts are incurred in Singapore. Other issues which relate to a debt, such as the court/s with jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to the debt, the law governing the debt, the place where the demand for repayment is to be made, the place where the debt is to be repaid, the place where a debt can be recovered, do not determine or change the place where the debt is incurred.

13 Section 61(1)(d) does more than control the operation of the criminal provisions of our bankruptcy law on foreign debts. It also narrows the exposure of Singapore property to claims based on debts incurred outside Singapore.

14 In AmBank v Yong, the Court of Appeal gave valuable guidance to the implementation of the provision when it declared at [27] that “whether a debt is incurred outside Singapore under s 61(1)(d) is, in the final analysis, a question of fact, not law.” While it did not (probably because it could not) set out fact-finding criteria which can be applied in all cases, its finding on the facts of that case is instructive.

15 Some significant and material facts are referred to in the Court’s judgment. AmBank is a Malaysian bank. The bank granted loans to two Malaysian companies. Yong, a Singaporean, stood guarantor for the two companies. When the two companies defaulted on repayment, the bank obtained judgment against Yong in Malaysia. The bank registered the judgment in Singapore under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed), but did not enforce it within six years from the date of the judgment. Because of the delay, leave of court was required to enforce the judgment in Singapore, which the bank did not obtain. The bank then served a statutory demand on Yong (the judgment did not disclose the location of service of the statutory demand.) When the demand was not met the bank instituted bankruptcy proceedings against him.

16 Against the basis of these facts, the Court of Appeal held at [32] that “there can be no doubt that the debt in question arose in Malaysia, and it is, in every way, a debt “incurred outside Singapore””, and set aside the statutory demand.

17 From the facts set out in [14] supra, the only factor connecting the debt to Singapore is Yong’s nationality. The place of service of the statutory demand was not disclosed, but that is unlikely to have been considered relevant as the debt was incurred before the statutory demand was served. It is also likely that the facilities were made in Malaysia as the lender and the borrowers are all Malaysia entities and it is more probable than not that the borrowers’ accounts with the bank were in Malaysia. If the accounts were in Singapore, the bank would have relied on that. On the basis of the facts, the Court of Appeal had ruled that the debts were incurred outside of Singapore for the purpose of s 61(1)(d).

The corresponding facts

18 I do not think that all the facts relating to the relationship of the parties and the transactions would have an equal bearing in the determination of the place where the debt was incurred. In a situation involving a lender, a borrower and a guarantor, the borrower owes the debt to the lender and the guarantor guarantees the repayment of the debt. In other words, this is a one-debt-multiple-debtors situation. Moving on from that, while the same debt applies to the borrower and the guarantor, their liability may be different; defences available to one of them may not be available to the other.

19 The facts of the present case are:

(a)
the lender bank is the Hong Kong branch of the Ing Bank NV;

(b)
the borrower is a BVI company;

(c)
the plaintiff is a British citizen holding a Singapore Employment Pass, and with a residence in Singapore;

(d)
no judgment or award has been obtained against the plaintiff; and

(e)
the statutory demand was served in Singapore.

20 The question to be addressed is how the facts and conclusion in AmBank v Yong are applicable to the present case. The lender and borrowers are outside Singapore. From the know facts, it is most likely that AAIL’s account with the defendant was at the latter’s branch in Hong Kong and the credit facilities were disbursed through that account. In any event, the exact place the account was maintained is not critical as long as it is not Singapore. The burden was on the defendant to establish that the statutory demand was a proper statutory demand, which did not infringe s 61(1)(d). The defendant had to show that the debt was incurred in Singapore, and it had not done that.

21 For the reasons given in [17] and [18] supra, the issuance and service of the statutory demand cannot change the place where a debt is incurred. The relevant facts in AmBank v Yong are also present in the present case:

(a)
the lender and borrowers are outside of Singapore; and

(b)
the bank accounts were not located in Singapore.

22 As the Court of Appeal had ruled that the question whether a debt is incurred outside Singapore is a question of fact, and the Court found that the debt in AmBank v Yong was incurred outside Singapore, the debt in the present case, by the same reasoning, must have been incurred outside Singapore.

23 The defendant raised an objection against the plaintiff’s reliance on s 61(1)(d). It submitted that[note: 2]:

It should be noted that Section 61 of the Bankruptcy Act is only applicable in the context of a bankruptcy application; the Bankruptcy Act has no similar provision pertaining to statutory demands. No bankruptcy application having yet been filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, the Defendant takes the position that it is entirely premature for the Plaintiff to rely on Section 61 of the Bankruptcy Act at this juncture.

That objection is founded on a narrow reading of s 61(1). Inasmuch as the provision states that no bankruptcy application shall be made to the court unless the four conditions set out in (a), (b), (c) and (d) are satisfied, it can be argued that the penalty for the non-compliance of the four conditions is that no bankruptcy application can be made, and not that a statutory demand cannot be issued.

24 Such a position is based on a reading of the provision in isolation without regard to the purpose and effect of a statutory demand in bankruptcy proceedings. The effect of a statutory demand is made clear in s 62:

For the purposes of a creditor’s bankruptcy application, a debtor shall, until he proves to the contrary, be presumed to be unable to pay any debt within the meaning of section 61(1)(c) if the debt is immediately payable and —

(a)(i) the applicant creditor to whom the debt is owed has served on him in the prescribed manner, a statutory demand;

(ii)at least 21 days have elapsed since the statutory demand was served;

Bankruptcy proceedings are often made on the basis of a statutory demand (see r 102 BR), and the presumption of insolvency which arises when it is not met. That is the only purpose of a statutory demand in the BR.

25 Taken in this broader context, there is little merit in the argument that an objection under s 61(1)(d) can only be raised to resist a bankruptcy application, but not to set aside a statutory demand. There is no reason to deny a party served with a statutory demand the right to take immediate action to set it aside and pre-empt a bankruptcy application, and to oblige the party to put up with the presumption that it is unable to pay the debt demanded. In any event, r 97 allows a debtor who has been served with a statutory demand to apply to set it aside and r 98(2)(e) decrees that a court shall set aside a statutory demand if the court is satisfied that it ought to be set aside. These rules entitle the plaintiff to apply to set aside a statutory demand for non-compliance with s 61(1)(d).

Ground (b) – the debt is disputed on substantial grounds

26 Section 98(2)(b) provides that a court shall set aside a statutory demand if “the debt is disputed on grounds which appear to the court to be substantial”.

27 The plaintiff alleged that subsequent to the execution of the guarantee but before the facility letter was signed (and before any facilities were provided), he had been assured by Y N Nagendra (“Nagendra”), the defendant’s Managing Director, Global Head of Marketing, India Sub-Contenent, that there was no risk that the guarantee being enforced against him because the defendant was “very comfortable with the assets that were being provided as collateral for the Facilities and … the guarantee would not be called upon and is only there as a mere formality”[note: 3]. He also alleged that other officers of the defendant had also assured him that the guarantee was a mere formality, and he said that but for these assurances, he would not have signed the guarantee.[note: 4] In the submissions before me, the plaintiff made the point that Nagendra had not deposed any affidavit to deny the allegation.

28 A few observations can be made on these allegations:

(a)
the plaintiff did not disclose when Nagendra gave the assurance;

(b)
the other officers who gave similar assurances were not identified;

(c)
the plaintiff acknowledges that he has been engaged in the financial industry and has “significant experience and expertise in trading distressed debt, in particular bank debt”, going back to before 1999[note: 5]; and

(d)
the plaintiff had not recorded or obtained confirmation of the assurance, the significance of which must have been known to him when he executed the guarantee in reliance of it.

Ground (c) – the debtor has a valid counterclaim and set-off which is equivalent to or exceeds the amount of the debt

29 This ground was elaborated on in the plaintiff’s submissions to be that “the primary debtor AAIL is not only disputing the Defendants’ claim against them but has also cross-claims against the Defendants which if established would extinguish their liability to the Defendants.”[note: 6]

30 There are two components to this ground, firstly the denial of the debt, and secondly the counterclaim. On the first issue, it is open to the borrower and the guarantor to dispute the debt claimed by the lender. Although the submissions are that AAIL was disputing the debt, it is evident that the plaintiff also disputes the debt on the same grounds. This has to be made clear because AAIL has been wound-up, and the liquidators of AAIL are not disputing the debt or making any counterclaim on behalf of AAIL.

31 The crux of AAIL’s dispute was that AAIL had provided to the defendant some financial notes including notes known as Tarquin Notes and Fund Linked Notes, which the defendant had been attributed with zero values when Nomura International London, the organisation the plaintiff and AAIL had instructed to structure or arrange for the structuring of the notes ceased to issue valuations for them. The plaintiff disagrees with that zero valuation and contends that the notes are “likely to be of substantial value”[note: 7], but without disclosing any basis for the statement or putting forward any value for the notes.

My decision

Extension of time to apply to set aside the statutory demand

32 Rule 97(1)(a) provides that the application was to be filed within 14 days from the service of the statutory demand. Rule 97(3) empowers a court to extend the period. When an application is made for an extension of time, a court would have to take into consideration:

(a)
the period of the delay;

(b)
the reasons for the delay;

(c)
the grounds for setting aside the statutory demand; and

(d)
the prejudice that may result from an extension of time;

but the weightage of each factor has to be determined on the facts.

33 In this case, the delay of eight days is quite long. The reasons put forward, ie, that the plaintiff was in the United Kingdom to attend to his ailing father and his financial and legal problems when the statutory demand was served, and had returned to Singapore three days before the date line for application were not strong reasons for the delay. However the plaintiff had presented a good case that the statutory demand should be set aside as it did not comply with s 61(1)(d), and an extension of time will not prejudice the defendant, as it will have to confront s 61(1)(d) if it takes out bankruptcy proceedings against the plaintiff.

34 For the sake of completeness, I add that I do not consider the plaintiff’s arguments on assurances/estoppel and the valuation issues to be substantial grounds of disputes following within r 98(2)(b) because of the deficiency of content of these allegations.

35 After reviewing the matters, I conclude that the application should be granted. With the finding that the debt was incurred outside Singapore and was not recoverable by execution in Singapore, the case for setting aside the statutory demand made up for the delay in the application.

36 I allow the plaintiff’s appeal and set aside the AR’s orders. I grant the plaintiff’s applications to enlarge time to file the application to set aside the statutory demand, and I set aside the statutory demand. The plaintiff is to have the costs of the appeal as well as the costs before the AR.

[note: 1]Plaintiff’s Skeletal Submissions, para 7

[note: 2]Defendant’s/Respondent’s Submissions, para 113

[note: 3]Affidavit of plaintiff, 6 July 2009, para 16

[note: 4]Affidavit of plaintiff, 6 July 2009, para 20

[note: 5]Affidavit of plaintiff, 7 December 2009, para 18

[note: 6]Plaintiff’s Skeletal Submissions, para 14

[note: 7]Plaintiff’s Skeletal Submissions, para 32

View Comment

arabest1Posted on1:50 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Iceman says;

It has survived liquidation, and annihilation in some form

————————————————————————————————–

No it has not! Not as far as I’m concerned. 😉

I find myself moving closer to your position with each passing week Icy….but then we were never really that far apart, if I may…..my optimism compared to your cynicism was the main difference, and of course anyone in their right mind should be cynical! 😉

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:50 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Drew Peacock says:
June 29, 2013 at 1:42 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 29, 2013 at 1:36 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I’m not sure of the exact rule but it makes sense to consolidate TRFC results to give the investors sight of the performance of the club that ultimately underlies their investment in the Plc.
================================================================
I’ll fire off an email to Aim on Monday and ask them what AIM rule allows it – I hate loose ends 🙂

View Comment

arabest1Posted on1:55 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Carfins Finest. says:
June 29, 2013 at 12:02 am

72

1

Rate This

I replied to a Sevco fan earlier on twitter who had posted a warning on Albion Rovers site warning their players to watch what they posted on twitter. In other words do not upset Sevco. When I pointed out that the draw was barely 2 hours old and the first threat of the season

————————————————————————————————-

This tale illustrates just how tender they are to the facts. They will turn on anyone who dares to suggest RFC 1872 are being liquidated as a sports club…………I will never tire of reminding them of their shameful demise…..never!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:00 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Sam says:
June 29, 2013 at 1:49 pm
======================================================

Sam – Could you perhaps precis that post and flag-up the bits that involved Scottish Football? Cheers.

View Comment

SamPosted on2:01 pm - Jun 29, 2013


RIFCL Major Shareholder –

Lord Of Fraud
This website is named after Graham Michael Shandiman, an Australian national who as a member of a transnational financial fraud syndicate carried more intelligence on the dark grey underworld of banking that although mushrooming is largely unrecognised by the real banking world, the world that stands to lose the most at the mercy of scammers that no longer deal in millions or billions like Rafat Rizvi who pulled down an Indonesian bank and badly damaged a Hong Kong Bank or Nick Leeson who sunk Barings Bank but now deal in trillions.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:15 pm - Jun 29, 2013


nickmcguinness says:
June 29, 2013 at 1:49 pm

ecobhoy at 12:51pm:

RE: That payment demad for Asia Credit Corporation; Rizvi was arranging with Ahmad for £600,000 “commission” to be wired to his sidekick, Chris Morgan.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this sum was not paid in full and that this later led to the threats from another of Rizvi’s companies, Orlit Enterprises, to serve a Winding Up Order on Spivco.
I think Charlotte knows exactly what is going on here.
=============================================================
I mentioned the other day that perhaps the £600K was related to the Orlit debt but that would mean I reckon that the transaction was never completed and the money not sent.

I wondered if what CF was actually pointing out here was a connection between Rizvi and Morgan in the shape of the Asia Credit Corporation as I don’t know whether the Rangers egm will still go ahead or not and obviously such a link could torpedo Morgan’s chances of a Board seat.

I also have never been able to establish whether the £400K shareholding in RIFC Plc is held by Morgan or by Asia Credit Corporation.

But I think we can accept that even spivs wouldn’t attempt to pay £600K commission on raising £400K in investment. But what about the possible £4 million from Rizvi – now £600K commission fits much better there.

I really think Orlit was what made Green don the Dunlop Green flash plimsolls of his youth and get outa Ibrox in a hurry. And I always remember his wittering that the Orlit debt wasn’t a written contract but a verbal agreement and if Rizvi was involved I doubt that his name would be appearing anywhere.

But the other interesting point is why was the CF email copied to CW – was that still part of the con being worked on CW over Sevco 5088?

Chris Morgan, Asia Credit Corporation – 400k

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:17 pm - Jun 29, 2013


nickmcguinness says:
June 29, 2013 at 1:49 pm
——————————————————–
Meant to ask – do we have any proof of Rizvi being involved with Orlit?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:22 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Sam says:
June 29, 2013 at 12:54 pm
————————————————————-
An article, from 2010, on the website owned by Rizvi, also mentions that a company
called Greenland Ltd is connected to him.
————————————————————————————-
Do you have a link for the website/article?

View Comment

SamPosted on2:23 pm - Jun 29, 2013


RIFCL Major Shareholder –

Nov. 30 (Bloomberg) — WestLB AG says it is owed $22.3 million by Nomura Holdings Inc. after the Japanese bank decided debt securities it created became worthless at the height of the financial crisis.

The lender is appealing an earlier decision in favor of Nomura by a U.K. judge, who said Dusseldorf, Germany-based WestLB had failed to prove the valuation resulted in losses that wouldn’t have occurred anyway.

The securities, linked to an Asian investment fund, were due to mature in November 2008. Because of the banking crisis caused by the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Nomura was unable to find bidders to establish the value of the notes and concluded they were worthless.

The judge in the original trial “should have considered that the market conditions were not directly relevant to the valuation exercise,” WestLB lawyer Jonathan Nash told the U.K. appeals court today. The securities held by WestLB should have been worth $22.3 million because the underlying assets had “significant value,” he said.

Nomura spokeswoman Beth Brophy didn’t immediately comment on the dispute.

Tokyo-based Nomura in 2003 sold WestLB structured notes linked to the Global Opportunities Fund, which was managed by First Capital Management Ltd. of Mauritius, and arranged by the firm’s managing director, Rafat Rizvi.

Arrest Warrant

Nomura later determined there was no public information about many of the entities in which the fund invested, and that one of the entities was fake, according to court filings in the lawsuit. Indonesia issued an arrest warrant for Rizvi, Nomura said in the filings.

Rizvi “turned out to be unreliable, possibly fraudulent,” Nash said. He said the judge at the original trial should have tried to put a value on the securities instead of accepting they were worthless.

“The judge, even with all the difficulties, could have come up with a figure,” Nash said.

The trial court case was WestLB v Nomura Bank International Plc & Anr, 09-497, High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Case No. 09-497.

View Comment

nickmcguinnessPosted on2:26 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Orlit is based in the same Singapore buildings as others linked to Rizvi and his main frontman, Singapore lawyer Fook Meng.
Rizvi’s wife is a director of Orlit.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on2:28 pm - Jun 29, 2013


ecobhoy says:
June 29, 2013 at 2:17 pm

Meant to ask – do we have any proof of Rizvi being involved with Orlit?

Try Sligobhoy’s post on this thread,

http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/topic/8781404/137/

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:33 pm - Jun 29, 2013


nickmcguinness says:
June 29, 2013 at 2:26 pm
neepheid says:
June 29, 2013 at 2:28 pm

Thanks both – ’nuff said 🙂

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on2:40 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Sam says:
June 29, 2013 at 9:35 am

“without the consent of Cenkos Securities plc other than in limited circumstances such as to
connected persons,
a family trust
or in the event of a takeover of the Company.”
——————-
Still a bit too cryptic for me Sam. Is this tying back to the Charlotte e:mail concerning the bank transaction for £600,000, six months earlier?

View Comment

thepinkpantherPosted on2:57 pm - Jun 29, 2013


New poster. To me, for whatever reason,there seems to be a pause on the blog. Where we go from here? I don’t have the answer. Through the highs and lows, we always move on and though they think they are winning, they ain’t. Never tire. The truth will out. We are scottish football,we are the fans! Somewhere in this small country I call home,a crack will appear.

View Comment

SamPosted on3:08 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Rafat A. Rizvi, Non-Executive Director

Mr. Rizvi is co-founder and Managing Director of First Capital Management Limited, a Mauritius-based
asset manager, (where he is primarily responsible for the management of the ‘First Global Funds’ family of funds which has over US$1.6 billion of assets undermanagement).

Before establishing First Capital Management, Mr. Rizvi spent several years in London and Singapore with Kidder Peabody/PaineWebber where he was Managing Director and head of the Firm’s non-Japan Asia businesses.
Mr. Rizvi has a B.Sc.(Hons) Chemistry from the University of Essex.

View Comment

GazPosted on3:14 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Rangers season ticket renewals period if over, with the figure for renewals apparently being 27,000.

If I remember correctly their claimed figure for last year was 38,000 so they are currently sitting 11,000 short of last years figure.

In addition they have frozen the season ticket prices, so that could result in a fairly substantial drop in income. Unless there is a substantial uptake in the public sale this could cost massive additional problems. It could mean a drop in season ticket income of anything up to 29%, for a business already struggling financially.

View Comment

SamPosted on3:24 pm - Jun 29, 2013


WestLB Seeks $22.3 Million From Nomura in U.K. Trial (Update1)

By Erik Larson

WestLB AG , the German lender bailed out during the financial crisis, told a U.K. court today that a unit of Nomura Holdings Inc. should pay $22.3 million for notes it wrongly said were worthless.

Nomura International last year used a “fraudulent” bidding procedure to determine the value of shares in an investment fund after missing a deadline to deliver the notes that were linked to the shares, instead of paying their cash value, WestLB argued on the first day of a trial at the High Court in London.

Nomura had a right to choose the valuation method and the shares were deemed worthless because several banks expressed no interest in them, Nomura’s lawyer, Richard Handyside , said. “The valuation should be held to be final and binding,” Handyside said in an Oct. 7 court filing.

WestLB, based in Dusseldorf, claims Nomura should have used the $22.3 million cash value of the notes established by the fund’s manager, Mauritian International Trust Co., or Mitco. Nomura said that valuation wasn’t reliable because it didn’t outline its methodology or the fund’s underlying assets.

The dispute involves the 2003 purchase of $26 million in shares of Global Opportunities Fund, which was managed by First Capital Management Ltd. of Mauritius, and arranged by the firm’s managing director, Rafat Rizvi .

‘Limited Information’

Nomura “had very limited information available to it concerning the financial position or assets of the fund and the shares were very illiquid,” at the time of the valuation, the Tokyo-based bank said in its filing.

Nomura calculated the value by sending bid requests to JPMorgan Chase & Co. , Goldman Sachs Group Inc. , Credit Suisse Group AG , Deutsche Bank AG and the fund’s custodian bank, Standard Chartered Plc , court papers show.

The banks weren’t given background information to support Mitco’s valuation and Nomura referred to the underlying shares in communications to the banks as “pretty messy,” “tricky” and “a black box,” according to the filing. The banks didn’t bid on the shares, and WestLB criticized the way Nomura described the securities, according to the filing. Nomura claims the description was “market color.”

Nomura later determined there was no public information about many of the entities in which the fund invested, and that one of the entities was fake, according to court filings. The fund also invested in what is now known as PT Bank Mutiara , an Indonesian bank that Rizvi held shares in which received a $730 million bailout in November 2008 and whose management is under criminal investigation, according to Nomura’s court filing.

Indonesian Warrant

Indonesia issued an arrest warrant for Rizvi, Nomura said in a court filing.

Rizvi’s lawyer, Angus McBride of the firm Kingsley Napley LLP in London, said today in an interview that he isn’t aware of an arrest warrant in Indonesia and that an Interpol notice against his client was being reviewed by the international police agency at Rizvi’s request. Rizvi believes he’s being “scapegoated” for the bank’s collapse, McBride said.

“Nomura considers WestLB’s claim to be without foundation,” a spokeswoman for the bank, who declined to be identified, said in a telephone interview.

State-owned WestLB is shedding risky businesses and preparing to sell itself by the end of 2011 under conditions imposed by the European Commission as part of its bail out. Germany’s Soffin bank-rescue fund agreed last year to provide WestLB with 3 billion euros ($4.2 billion).

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on3:48 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Auldheid says:
June 29, 2013 at 11:24 am
………………………….

Thanks for that Auldheid….the questions then follow…if the SFA are reliant on being provided financial detail by the club…who will be responsible for bringing it to the attention of the SFA it is wrong? and how would anyone know it is wrong?…

I have a feeling the SFA will simply bat away any challenge to figures if it is raised by supporters…and there is always the possibility that if the figures are discovered to be incorrect and the season has ended will the phrase…’it wasn’t dicovered before the licence was issued therefore the situation has expired and cannot be investigated’…

I just do not believe the SFA (with it’s current staff) can be trusted with any rules put in place.

View Comment

paulmac2Posted on3:54 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Gaz says:
June 29, 2013 at 3:14 pm
3 0 Rate This

Rangers season ticket renewals period if over, with the figure for renewals apparently being 27,000.

If I remember correctly their claimed figure for last year was 38,000 so they are currently sitting 11,000 short of last years figure.

In addition they have frozen the season ticket prices, so that could result in a fairly substantial drop in income. Unless there is a substantial uptake in the public sale this could cost massive additional problems. It could mean a drop in season ticket income of anything up to 29%, for a business already struggling financially.
……………………………………….

To be fair we have been warning the SEVCO fans not to renew based on what we know to be very questionable individuals running that club…

So 27k is still higher than I expected…the other question with regard to the 27k is…how many are concessions?…and how many are on quarterly payment plans?…can those payments be stopped if things continue on a downward?

It’s been awfuly quiet in Govan lately…

View Comment

GazPosted on4:43 pm - Jun 29, 2013


There’s no doubt it’s a fantastic figure for a Scottish 3rd division team. Most Spl clubs would absolutely love a figure like that.

However there are a couple of real issues.

1, Their wage bill has to be covered and
2, They have Ibrox and Murray Park to run.

They really need a lot more sold in the public sale. Now some people will have not renewed to get a seat elsewhere, but they could apply for a move anyway, and there will be some new people getting tickets but I don’t imagine that will be a huge amount.

I suspect that quite a few are going to just buy tickets on a match by match basis, but that would be really worrying for the club as it is not guaranteed income, and could fall away quickly if performances aren’t up to scratch.

It really must be a worrying time for the board.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on5:10 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Paulmac
The problem is that no matter how tight procedures are made, without mechanisms to check they are being followed, there will always be doubt.
One measure I would introduce is snap audits of a clubs books by an independent team of auditors.
I would contract that out as a service to be provided to both SFA and SPFL that both contribute to paying for and I would exclude Scottish firms from applying on the basis their independence would always be questioned.
In fact I would look at every aspect of SFA business and put as much as possible on a service provision basis with levels of service agreed and built into the mechanism.
Football, whilst still a sport, is very much big business and it is high time it adopted the kind of professional business approach that is now part and parcel of normal business conduct.
This would have to come from clubs demanding more professionalism from the governors and insisting on changes because to carry on as we have been doing is to produce the same amateur results.
This is how to change the SFA culture and the public perception of bunglers making it up as they go along.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on5:15 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Gaz
I’ll fire those figures into the spreadsheet that has already been uploaded and link to it.
I spread the 38,000 of last season across the ticket range and will do so again but I think I should uplift match day figures to allow for more switching. Not sure how to apply the uplift without looking at the sheet but I’ll come up with something, maybe a 50% uplift.
Laters.

View Comment

GazPosted on5:15 pm - Jun 29, 2013


martybhoy says:
June 29, 2013 at 5:09 pm

Wake up TSFM…grow a set ffs!!
==============================

Not really with you.

Why does TSFM have to “grow a set”.

View Comment

GazPosted on5:16 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Auldheid says:
June 29, 2013 at 5:15 pm

They are now saying almost 28,000 renewals, so you could probably use that figure for renewals.

View Comment

TroyblainPosted on5:18 pm - Jun 29, 2013


why would Celtic want to get out of their own countries league ? Celtic are an international brand , Rangers have always been a small club in comparison. The old firm nonsense matter to them because tagging onto Celtic s tails gives them the feeling of being a big club.

As for not wanting to be reminded that RFC 1872 are being liquidated, I can hear the chants now ringing from season 2016.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on5:19 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Martybhoy

I’ve been wondering more and more if someone is guaranteeing the wages.
The figures the SFA should publish re Turnover, Wages and ratio of wages to turnover should be interesting.
The SFA have commited to publish and have told clubs that they will and what comes out or indeed is kept private on some excuse will tell us a lot.

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on5:24 pm - Jun 29, 2013


According to today’s soar away Sun; “RANGERS last night saved £2million by ripping up the big-money contracts of Carlos Bocanegra and Dorin Goian.”

Could this be another ruthless economy drive similar to the way Sandaza was shown the exit?

No doubt those two high earners will just slink away with their tails between their legs.

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on5:33 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Sam says:
June 29, 2013 at 1:49 pm

“………………………………………….”
—————————–
That was an awfully long post Sam. Tooooo long to read. Perhaps posting a link would be better with maybe a few quotes in your post along with a bit of analysis about how it fits with the discussions.

View Comment

GazPosted on5:36 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Tommy says:
June 29, 2013 at 5:24 pm

It’s an interesting turnaround from the previous position they would have taken..

Basically two of the best players have walked away for nothing, and that is portrayed as a good thing.

How the self proclaimed mighty have fallen.

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on5:39 pm - Jun 29, 2013


ecobhoy says:
June 29, 2013 at 2:15 pm

“But the other interesting point is why was the CF email copied to CW – was that still part of the con being worked on CW over Sevco 5088?”
——————-
It was forwarded to CW. I’d assume because CW was expected to provide the funds.

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on5:45 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Gaz says:
June 29, 2013 at 3:14 pm

“If I remember correctly their claimed figure for last year was 38,000 so they are currently sitting 11,000 short of last years figure.”
—————-
If the Rangers supporters are cute they’ll do a walk up support to some extent. That keeps them in control of a significant part of the revenue.

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on5:49 pm - Jun 29, 2013


martybhoy says:
June 29, 2013 at 5:09 pm

“No internal debt?..No external funding?..Wake up TSFM…grow a set ffs!!”
———————
As you are currently feeling emboldened, perhaps you might proffer and answer to your two question.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:56 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Auldheid says:
June 29, 2013 at 5:19 pm

I’ve been wondering more and more if someone is guaranteeing the wages…
========================

You could be onto something there Auldheid.

Stockbridge the FD/CA will have his cash flow projections through to the end of next season – and now possibly based at the lower end of expectations if ST sales are not as strong as last season.

Many folks here expect a cash flow crisis during next season anyway.

Stockbridge can’t honestly give the club / SFA assurances that TRFC has the financial resources to participate for the full season…unless he has another source / guarantee in case there is indeed a cash shortage mid-season ?

View Comment

CastofThousandsPosted on5:56 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Auldheid says:
June 29, 2013 at 5:10 pm

“One measure I would introduce is snap audits of a clubs books by an independent team of auditors.”
———————–
I’m not sure how far the SFA can act as financial auditors. Their job is to administer to the sport (ahem!).

I think the club’s annual audited accounts would/should be used to determine if it met the financial criteria. We seen from one of Charlotte’s posts that RFC(IL) auditor’s declined to sign off the annual returns at one stage. That suggests that this is one of the few rules that was upheld to some degree.

I’m not sure what the annual returns include at the moment but a change in format may be all that is required.

View Comment

GazPosted on6:05 pm - Jun 29, 2013


StevieBC says:
June 29, 2013 at 5:56 pm

I suppose if there is enough IPO money left then he can say they have costs covered even if turnover drops.

In other thoughts, is there any way to establish how / if money is getting from RIFC to TRFC, bearing in mind that it was RIFC which actually had the IPO and as such raised the cash.

Is it loans to it’s subsidiary.

View Comment

newtzPosted on6:07 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Sam says:
June 29, 2013 at 1:49 pm
———————————

@eco @Sam

Catching up …. Brilliant find Sam …. had also seen the new report from Indonesia ….
@eco …. need to capture all this info and probably update your ‘Rizvi Dossier’ ……
———————

Some new links that I have come across …… (care of ICIJ database )

The Bunny Foundation …
3/F., BCI House P.O. Box 208 Avarua, Rarotonga COOK ISLANDS

JURISDICTION Cook Islands
COMPANY TYPE Cook Islands Trust
INCORPORATION DATE 2 Apr 2009
STATUS Active*

Rafat Ali Rizvi (trust Settlor)
CHAN FOOK MENG (Protector) …… Yacol Investment Co Ltd
Aman Rizvi (Beneficiary)
Sara Rizvi (Beneficiary)
Samar Rizvi (Beneficiary)

Fidelitycorp limited (Trustee of account)
UniLegal LLC (Master Client)

—————————————
For reference ….. on the 31-May-2012 Audo between IA, BS & CW
Lots of references to Rizvi …. mostly about keeping him off the radar …. stopping CG opening his mouth

June 21st email where IA says (regarding Rizvi funding) …. “lets make this happen”

been busy of late so may have missed stuff ….
Charlotte …. hope you can help further ! …. x

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:20 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Gaz says:
June 29, 2013 at 6:05 pm

StevieBC says:
June 29, 2013 at 5:56 pm

I suppose if there is enough IPO money left then he can say they have costs covered even if turnover drops…
======
I think most (?) folks are expecting a cash flow crisis next season – and that is based on utilising IPO monies, and ST’s monies etc.

RIFC can fund TRFC via loans, but the remaining IPO money, [the total of which is also TBC], is expected to run out before the end of next season. Hence the speculation that there could be a separate source / guarantee ?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:29 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Castofthousands says:
June 29, 2013 at 5:45 pm
Gaz says:
June 29, 2013 at 3:14 pm

“If I remember correctly their claimed figure for last year was 38,000 so they are currently sitting 11,000 short of last years figure.”
—————-
If the Rangers supporters are cute they’ll do a walk up support to some extent. That keeps them in control of a significant part of the revenue.
————————————————————————————

I seem to remember that around 5-6000 ST’s were half-season only and therefore heavily discounted so probably the ‘full price’ ones sold were around 33,000. But we can never be sure what PR stroke they will pull on the numbers.

View Comment

GazPosted on6:31 pm - Jun 29, 2013


StevieBC says:
June 29, 2013 at 6:20 pm

Why would anyone provide money, or a guarantee to a business which has overspent it’s income to such an extent that it needed a further £22m just to keep trading.

What would their end game be, what would be in it for them.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:37 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Tommy says:
June 29, 2013 at 5:24 pm

According to today’s soar away Sun; “RANGERS last night saved £2million by ripping up the big-money contracts of Carlos Bocanegra and Dorin Goian.” Could this be another ruthless economy drive similar to the way Sandaza was shown the exit? No doubt those two high earners will just slink away with their tails between their legs.
=======================================================================

I don’t see them walking away without dosh – why should they? The only way they would need to do it is if their agents screwed-up on the contracts and I don’t see that.

Is this just another bit of succulent lamb fed to the Sun to make the Bears feel good by thinking they can pay for the extra players by this pair walking. They can play with accounts and show the wage roll has been reduced but those two contracts will have been bought-out and no doubt that comes under another financial heading.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:39 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Gaz says:
June 29, 2013 at 6:31 pm
StevieBC says:
June 29, 2013 at 6:20 pm

Why would anyone provide money…
============================
… and why would anyone want to be associated with the club from Govan…another of life’s mysteries. 🙂

If I knew the answers about financing, and the end game – I might become a spiv myself !

IMO, it also comes back to the debate: is this all part of an overall ‘masterplan’, or they just reacting / making it up as they go along done Govan way ?

Ultimately, IMO, no Sugar Daddy = a knackered club.

View Comment

GazPosted on6:42 pm - Jun 29, 2013


StevieBC says:
June 29, 2013 at 6:39 pm

In my opinion there was a plan.

It didn’t work the way it was supposed to.

They are making it up now.

View Comment

newtzPosted on6:48 pm - Jun 29, 2013


ecobhoy says:

June 29, 2013 at 2:15 pm
———————————-

Sorry still jumping about a bit trying to catch up ….
@eco ….. not forgetting the £8m proposal from Rizvi and mates which can’t be accounted for …..

June 21st Email … (From Rizvi via alias)

Dear Imran,
I have been in touch with a number of the investors this morning and they would be grateful for clarification on the following issues.
1. The potential investor for GBP8mm – why do you not structure this as a loan with a coupon and provide security over some of the assets of the Club?
2. Realistically the only asset that could be of use to a lender is the Training Ground
3. Our suggestion would be two 5 year loans for up to GBP 4mm each with GBP 4mm due next week. The other GBP 4mm callable by the Club at any time after 1 October and puttable by the lender at any time from date of signing. so if they have funds available earlier then the Lender can force the Hold Co to take the money, otherwise if, as the Lender has stated, its funds are only available after 1 October the Hold Co will not be able to ask for funds until then. (of course if they don’t have the funds in October and Hold Co calls then Lender will be in breach and the commitment for accepting their additional GBP 4mm would fall away)
4. Coupon of 8% per annum
5. Secured against Training Ground
6. Club has right to repay after a minimum of 1 year after drawdown on each tranche
7. Warrants at 50p for ____ shares (to be discussed)
8. Lender has right to appoint 2 non-execs to the Board (which we know would be subject to usual fit and proper tests)
This would appear to be a fair structure and one which should achieve all that they want but also provide the Hold Co with the flexibility that it needs.I also believe that this “direct” lending avoids the need to put in place structures that make the Lender uncomfortable.

IA (Relied) ….. Lets make this happen

View Comment

adutchladPosted on6:49 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Tommy says:
June 29, 2013 at 5:24 pm
6 0 Rate This

According to today’s soar away Sun; “RANGERS last night saved £2million by ripping up the big-money contracts of Carlos Bocanegra and Dorin Goian.”

Could this be another ruthless economy drive similar to the way Sandaza was shown the exit?

No doubt those two high earners will just slink away with their tails between their legs.

————————————————————————————————
i won’t believe for one second that they will walk away empty handed from a million a year deal.
i think that their agents won’t be pleased with that ,after all they get a slice of the million ,so i think that a deal was reached by paying off the last year
my guess is a 50/50 deal saving them 1 million instead of 2

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:04 pm - Jun 29, 2013


OK Martbhoy.

You have been making references to money-laundering for well over a year now – and further cryptic clues recently.

Give us the detail then.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on7:12 pm - Jun 29, 2013


newtz says:
June 29, 2013 at 6:48 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 29, 2013 at 2:15 pm
———————————-
Sorry still jumping about a bit trying to catch up ….
@eco ….. not forgetting the £8m proposal from Rizvi and mates which can’t be accounted for …..
============================================================================

I’d forgotten about that email. But it ties in with what I was thinking that the investment needn’t be in shares but by loan, secured against assets, which I believe was the position with Naqvi and others. Green put the bite on them apparently to convert into shares but Naqvi is supposedly to have told him to get stuffed and got his cash plus interest and walked away.

OK with a debenture you don’t get the voting power that you do with shares but you see how they were getting two NEDs on the Board for 8 million shares which would give them a bit of muscle.

View Comment

newtzPosted on7:22 pm - Jun 29, 2013


@MartyBhoy …

Making dinner at mo …… the important question for me right now ….
The recipe says “Set the oven to 180 degrees,” …….. but how do I open the door ?

as they say ….
I’ll get ma coat ….

View Comment

newtzPosted on7:32 pm - Jun 29, 2013


ecobhoy says:

June 29, 2013 at 7:12 pm
———————————–
anyone ….. remind us who are the NED’s ….. busy figuring out dinner at mo ……… LOL

View Comment

newtzPosted on7:36 pm - Jun 29, 2013


ecobhoy says:

June 29, 2013 at 7:12 pm
————————————

Does this explain the urgency / priority to purchase the Training Ground outright ( … was it the TG ? or other ? )

#Curious

View Comment

neepheidPosted on7:50 pm - Jun 29, 2013


newtz says:
June 29, 2013 at 7:36 pm
0 0 Rate This

ecobhoy says:

June 29, 2013 at 7:12 pm
————————————

Does this explain the urgency / priority to purchase the Training Ground outright ( … was it the TG ? or other ? )

#Curious
+++++++++++++++
It was Edmiston House and the Albion Car Park. Both were bought in January, as soon as the IPO money came in, in other words.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on7:56 pm - Jun 29, 2013


Re the financial information required by the football authorities why not make this something to be provided by the relevant club’s auditors?

As they are already privy to all of this information the additional cost of verifying and submitting this should be minimal.

A start anyway?

Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

newtzPosted on8:03 pm - Jun 29, 2013


neepheid says:

June 29, 2013 at 7:50 pm
———————————

Thks ….. I guess that explains Rizvi suggestion ….. I was’nt clear
was any explaination why the purchases where necessary …. could be completely innocent

#StillCurious

TeeHee …… just texted the kids …..
Want the new wifi password? …. clean your room & vacuum

While at it ……
Renamed the wifi “SFO Surveillance Van24” ……….that will freak the neighbors …..

No more vino for me …….

As they say ….
I’ll ………… hic

View Comment

Comments are closed.