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

Avatar 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

Avatar

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

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:09 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Castofthousands says:
July 4, 2013 at 4:04 pm

You’re on form today mate!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:16 pm - Jul 4, 2013


So, with a fresh interpretation, the position of the “current board” to be clarified (in May 2011 remember) was actually how they would feel about shafting ticketus via administration who had conveniently been used to get rid of that pesky unwilling lender who was obviously threatening a claim of wrongful trading whilst keeping the season ticket holding bears sweet.

Nice. Dignified even.

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on4:27 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Tommy says:
July 4, 2013 at 12:39 pm
………………………………

“The committee is concerned about allegations that Huawei has links to the People’s Liberation Army in China and the Chinese government”…

FFS….is there a corruption magnet buried under Ibrox?

View Comment

Avatar

CastofThousandsPosted on4:30 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Smugas says:
July 4, 2013 at 4:09 pm

“You’re on form today mate!”
—————————–
My irony detector isn’t picking up anything so I’ll take your comment as unbridled encouragement. It did provide me with the impetus to hunt down that document implying a Ticketus ring fenced account that had been dipped by CW (“Ticketus have sight of this account…”) :

scribd.com/doc/147024746/Grier-Awareness …

View Comment

Avatar

CastofThousandsPosted on4:31 pm - Jul 4, 2013


http://www.scribd.com/doc/147024746/Grier-Awareness

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:36 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Ecobhoy,

The mists of time have descended on my recollection of the earlier Murray Ticketus deal. Would repayments to Ticketus (what I now understand to be the ring fenced funds DMc refers to) still have been being made in May 2011 to repay the earlier deal? I guess the income from the 2010/11 sales would still have been dribbling in for those on schemes/plans etc whilst the 2011/12 sales would only just have been starting to arrive. That would make sense albeit it would reduce the boards culpability regarding the new CW Ticketus deal.

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins Finest.Posted on4:36 pm - Jul 4, 2013


When Neil Lennon or Peter Lawell praise and thank the Celtic Fans and tell them how wonderful they are it usually means it is the end of the season. The annual pat on the back before going your holidays. I feel as if the sentiments are sincere and honest. This is because these sentiments are generally aired, as I said, Annually. If these outpourings of emotion were lavished on us on a daily basis we would soon get tired hearing them. They would soon loose their meaning. Not only that we would start to get suspiscious and a wee bit embarrased about the Club constantly telling us how great we are. I think now the TRFC fans are at that stage with Ally and Co. constantly fawning over them. I think they would rather just be left alone. They know they are being fleeced by all at the new club, including Ally himself, but they also know that if they stop paying up the gig is over. Constantly having their collective ego masssaged in this way merely helps to constantly remind them of their perilous position.

View Comment

Gaz

GazPosted on4:38 pm - Jul 4, 2013


On season tickets being honoured.

Strictly speking a season ticket holder is a creditor as I understand it, and again strictly speaking I think an administrator could refuse to honour those and ask for payment at the gate, as to do other wise is to almost give a preference.

However I think it would be very harsh if anyone was to do that. The business itself may have gotten into trouble, there may be fault on the part of the people running it, however I think it would be wrong to punish the fans who after all are really only paying customers.

I think it is general practice to honour the season tickets and I agree with that policy. Whatever the exact legal position may be.

View Comment

Avatar

EKBhoyPosted on4:47 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Gents,

The chat on the media bias & uselessness always raises a smile. The constant rubbish and pro-Rangers press is not a new phenomenon but it has reached fairly dizzy heights since their demise. Whilst most of this can be laughed at as “pathetic nonsense” , their is a more malevolent use that Rangers employ the media , through the dog whistle. As well as intimidation, the media can / are / have been used to basically push players out the door at Ibrox minus their contractual obligations – the Nuno Capacho syndrome , remember him being slaughtered in the DR for all McLeishes problems and he had the cheek to want to stay and fight for his place. Yes, Sheils and Black will find out what lengths the media will go to , if they do not leave Ibrox quietly – all whispered by Mr McCoist.

If anyone has the time then can we have a weekly Sunday Lamb joint award for the most proposterously biased story of the week , monthly award , and annual prize. The monthly prize will be a lamb joint posted to the award winning journalist, with instructions on preparation and consumption. Annual award silver plate for lamb , no apron provided ( assumed already available).

View Comment

Avatar

BangordubPosted on4:50 pm - Jul 4, 2013


“can we have a weekly Sunday Lamb joint award for the most proposterously biased story of the week , monthly award , and annual prize. ”
Brilliant, can we make this happen?

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on5:00 pm - Jul 4, 2013


ecobhoy,

Re: the “Old Firm” player article. as Celtic Paranoia points out, it was the now defunct NoW that ran the piece. The old memory is confusing one tawdry rag with another.

My sincere apologies to the Daily Record for even thinking such a bastion of truth might pull such a deplorable stunt.

View Comment

Avatar

Galling fiverPosted on5:01 pm - Jul 4, 2013


” I’m not sure if Eco is undercover or just contrary, ”

Apologies, it was a tad direct. “We” have suffered enough.

If what you seek is to be the better man and rise above the bitterness towards the offending club, good luck to you, and in that case my apologies, again.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on5:08 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Smugas says:
July 4, 2013 at 4:05 pm
Cast of thousands

On second reading (I really should take EB’s advice more) I’ll concede that DMc is acting/writing on behalf of the board (that he was about to be suspended from) so that in his planned future meeting with BJ he could help him (BJ) fully understand the current board’s position.

If that is correct then, IMO, the entire board is complicit in knowing precisely what was happening, how it was being carried out (financed) and what the eventual end game was. That’s not an interpretation I think the board would like – in fact it would almost prompt them to do something, like suspend the guy perhaps?
=====================================================================
I think you’re on the money there – perhaps it was the involvement of BDO and giving them a window into Rangers finances when, for all we know, perhaps MCR was already slotted in by CW to do the business.

It would certainly appear the Board could have been under little illusion as to the parlous state of Rangers’ finances.

Also worth remembering that MCR contract with Liberty Capital commenced 9 May 2011 so I think it’s fair to believe that McIntyre surely couldn’t have known about their involvement if he was in discussions with Bryan Jackson of BDO on 16 May and had sent him presumably highly confidential financial info the day before.

If he did know about MCR and went to BDO then that may well have been what caused his suspension or at the very least a strong catalyst for it. But it may just be that he knew too much about the fiances and the skeletons which would make CW uncomfortable IMO.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on5:16 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Tommy says:
July 4, 2013 at 5:00 pm
ecobhoy,

Re: the “Old Firm” player article. as Celtic Paranoia points out, it was the now defunct NoW that ran the piece. The old memory is confusing one tawdry rag with another. My sincere apologies to the Daily Record for even thinking such a bastion of truth might pull such a deplorable stunt.
======================================================================

Tbh I don’t think it matters which newspaper ran the article as the mechanism I described applies equally to each and good circulation people ‘circulate’ between the titles as they are perceived by newspapers as being more useful in increasing profit margins than most journalists and therefore in demand for their skills.

The sad fact about the Daily Record is that it once was a ‘bastion of Truth’ and it’s sad to see how far it has fallen.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on5:45 pm - Jul 4, 2013


http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/scotland-home/10262-termination-and-disclaimer-of-contracts-under-scots-insolvency-law
A very good analysis by Joanna Clark, of D&P’s attempt to “disclaim” the Ticketus contract.

“WHAT EFFECT DOES A SCOTTISH 
IP’S ‘DISCLAIMER’ HAVE ON THE UNDERLYING CONTRACT?


While the situation described above is sometimes referred to as power to disclaim, as was pointed out by Lord Hodge in the RFC plc case, properly analysed, this ‘power’ is no more than a decision to decline to perform with little attendant risk of an 
order being made against the IP by the court requiring performance.


So far as the underlying contract is concerned, the breach, or repudiation, of the contract by the IP needs to be accepted by the other party to bring it to an end. Acceptance may be express or implied by actions (for example, where a landlord accepts the return of keys from an IP 
and proceeds to take possession of 
the premises).


In certain circumstances, the solvent party may wish the contract to remain in place, notwithstanding that it is not being performed. In that event, the solvent party may wish to make it clear that the IP’s repudiation is not being accepted.
”

This is the position that Duff & Phelps and the MSM refused to publicly acknowledge.

Had the RFC(then IA) CVA been accepted by HMRC, the remainder of the Ticketus contract would have still been sitting in place for Mr Green, Mr Whyte and their funding vehicle Sevco 5088. It was simply impossible for Duff & Phelps to bring Rangers out af administration by way of a CVA as a “debt-free” business.

It appears then, that the only conceivable purpose of their CVA proposal, was to lock in the discounted asset sale to Sevco as part of the same deal. Craig Whyte may have desperately needed the CVA to keep the Ticketus contract alive, Charles Green and Duff & Phelps apparently did not.

Just another thing to consider…

If Neil Doncaster had not proffered the “same Club” nonsense in the week before the CVA vote, and had Sevco 5088 offered only a CVA – with no option to purchase the assets – would HMRC have acted any differently?

HMRC certainly could not have issued this statement:

“A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.

So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start.”

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/rangers.htm

Neil Doncaster’s statements and D&P’s “option” deal with Sevco 5088, made it so much easier for HMRC to “kill” the old Rangers Football Club.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on5:49 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Galling fiver says:
July 4, 2013 at 5:01 pm

” I’m not sure if Eco is undercover or just contrary, ” Apologies, it was a tad direct. “We” have suffered enough. If what you seek is to be the better man and rise above the bitterness towards the offending club, good luck to you, and in that case my apologies, again.
=============================================================
If people wish to smear me with an ‘undercover’ tag then that’s up to them but at that stage I usually lose interest in anything they have to say because it usually points to a lack of objectivity and rationality in their position. If being ‘contrary’ means that I am prepared to advance the views I believe in even if they aren’t the majority view then I am most certainly very contrary.

Of course perhaps I’m just gathering material for my PhD on the Psychology of Old Firm fans 🙂

I have never ever accepted a position as necessarily correct because it is regarded as the established one and held by the majority. If the subject interests me then I will examine the evidence especially that advanced by the proponents of the position.

It is fair to say that sometimes it is obvious that the adherents don’t seem to have much of a grasp in how they arrived at their belief in the position and I tend to think that’s because they accepted the ‘gang’ position because if you don’t then you don’t get TUs.

I have no bitterness towards Rangers and no hatred towards the club’s supporters. There are elements of the club’s baggage I oppose – not just in footballing terms – but in a wider societal context because I believe it damages our society in lots of ways. And I have no problem in saying I feel exactly the same about certain elements of the Celtic support.

I don’t seek to be the ‘better man’ in any respect but I happen to believe that one of the ways I think unacceptable behaviour can be tackled is through a strong and non-biased administration of football. Anyone taking a longer term view of my posts should be able to identify that common thread running through them.

What I believe to be important seldom coincides with entrenched positions and the closed mind mentality that engenders in all sides. And another important thing is that I don’t require that anyone else adopt or support my views although if it opens-up the possibility to them of looking at things from different positions then that would please me. That’s why I like to be able to understand how people with opposing views reach their position.

In a war of attrition the winner is more likely to be the ‘stronger’ one and whether they are right or wrong is often immaterial to the final outcome. I’m not interested in wasting energy on attrition when it could be spent on more positive and pleasant things.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on5:55 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Ogilvie – and now Doncaster ?
========================

Are either of these characters regarded with any credibility by Scottish football fans ?

Perhaps like many, I have been openly vitriolic about Ogilvie, as the SFA is supposed to be protecting Scottish football, including wrt honesty and fair play across the game. He failed, but was re-elected – and unopposed. So why would anyone have reason to believe that anything will improve at the SFA with Ogilvie – and Regan – still securely in position ?

Whilst unimpressed with Doncaster in the last 18 months or so, his main remit was quite different: it was to maximise revenues for the SPL. Money first, and honesty and fair play might appear much further down the SPL’s list of priorities. Fair enough…which is why we have the SFA for oversight… 🙄

Anyhoos, Doncaster has been deemed to be the ideal candidate to head up the new SPFL. The clubs where so sure about this that no headhunting agency was apparently contacted to see if there could be perhaps one or two individuals out there worth having a chat with. Not one ?

So, to me, it appears that the clubs – as with Ogilvie’s reappointment – have continued with the charade / deception / ignoring of the fans’ concerns with Doncaster’s appointment.

Let’s not forget that during all the turmoil last year Doncaster displayed his leadership qualities by ‘doing a Lord Lucan’, perhaps in the same bunker as Ogilvie. He did briefly appear to discuss the SPL Fans’ Survey results from 9K fans with the survey co-ordinators – but these discussions where to remain confidential. Waste of time.

Doncaster also appeared on TV IIRC, to spread disinformation about Rangers and their ability to continue as a ‘newco’ in the league, [see example below.]

And note that this disinformation was from a lawyer, whom I presume is typically very careful with every word he utters – and even more so when speaking to the media about contentious issues ?

Ogilvie and Doncaster, [& Regan], continue to lead Scottish football – and with the explicit support of their member clubs.

Nothing learned, nothing changed – doesn’t bode well for the future of the game at all, IMO.

Another opportunity missed to change key personnel, and give the fans some encouragement that the clubs are better tuned into their customer base. Another opportunity missed to ensure that the best people are in place to improve and develop Scottish football – and in an honest and transparent manner.
=================================================================================

“…Doncaster added: “In Scotland we have never had a newco at any time but in England, whenever a club goes into administration, a newco is the natural consequence. So the likes of Crystal Palace recently and Plymouth in the last few years took their points deduction for going into administration but in terms of coming out the newco was the preferred route…”

Doncaster’s comparisons were quickly questioned given that CVAs were approved before new owners assumed control at Palace and Argyle…”

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/305540-neil-doncaster-hints-that-any-rangers-newco-could-join-the-spl/

[ & Happy 4th of July… 🙂 ]

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on5:59 pm - Jul 4, 2013


CF latest

” Keeps it away from Ken too” Ken being the Finance Controller. This is what a fearful SFA were dealing with.

This is 2 months after the SFA gave them a UEFA licence on the basis the wee tax bill had neither “crystalised” at the time of award in May according to Mr Regan’s insistence as late as December 2011 and his assurances the unpaid tax was properly treated as not being an overdue payable under one or more of the criteria of Annex VIII of UEFA FFP in Sept 2011 when the bill had crystalised and it was an overdue payable not meeting any of the reasons not to be treated as such. And that is not to mention CW telling the SFA he had paid the £500k mentioned in para 14 of the Insolvency Services letter.

Scottish football or the SFA at least is sleepwalking into a total disaster and if the game as a whole does not realise the centre can no longer hold then chaos will reign.

If I were the SPFL I would ask UEFA that they take over or appoint interim governors until this tissue of lies is dropped in the dust bin of history with those who presided over it.

The CF leaks when accumulated are corroding away at the very foundations of our game and that is the trust on which it depends.

View Comment

Avatar

andy grahamPosted on6:02 pm - Jul 4, 2013


“Old firm targets” just popped up on my screen as John McKay had news of signing potentials for both clubs

When they do get back it will be the most used phrase in Scottish media

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on6:07 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Smugas says:
July 4, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Ecobhoy,

The mists of time have descended on my recollection of the earlier Murray Ticketus deal. Would repayments to Ticketus (what I now understand to be the ring fenced funds DMc refers to) still have been being made in May 2011 to repay the earlier deal? I guess the income from the 2010/11 sales would still have been dribbling in for those on schemes/plans etc whilst the 2011/12 sales would only just have been starting to arrive. That would make sense albeit it would reduce the boards culpability regarding the new CW Ticketus deal.
==================================================================

Tbh I don’t know the answer to that one. If it was an account holding Ticketus money it would depend when the money was due to be paid as it seems clear from the later CF Ticketus material that the ST money was paid to Ticketus in tranches by Rangers.

But it’s referred to in the email as a ‘ring-fenced bank account for working capital’ so is the concern that money being removed from it isn’t actually going towards paying running costs or does ‘working capital’ perhaps have a specific accounting meaning?

I could be wrong in thinking it was the Ticketus money and it’s just a pity that we haven’t been show the detail sent to Jackson as that would provide the answer I think.

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on6:37 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Couple of things
Is it possible that the ring fenced money was the season ticket money already collected, and only to be used for running costs in the coming season

Secondly, don’t forget that Johnston, I think, said that there had been a board vote taken on placing RFC in admin, that was defeated by one vote, and this was before Whyte’s arrival

Need to bear this in mind when reading CF’s docs

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on6:54 pm - Jul 4, 2013


To expand. My original understanding of the Ticketus mechanism was that Ticketus advanced (using RFC figures) circa 8m in December time annually. RFC then lived on this money and then, during the close season, collected the season ticket monies for the next season. This (9m to include interest) was then repaid to Ticketus in tranches finishing in July 2011 per the Grier Email chain. As RFC collect the following seasons’ season ticket cash this is put in a ring fenced account to fund the repayment tranches and so specifically avoid it going towards operating expenses especially in a loss making environment.

To return to DMc’s Email then he is basically saying he is concerned that the ring fenced monies (but does he mean 2011/12 tickets?) have already been dipped (to quote someone earlier) and it is confirmed they are significantly dipped again to the tune of 1.3m in June in the Grier chain. Surprise surprise come July 11 the panic is on as the supposedly ring fenced funds just aren’t there to fund the scheduled repayments (but do these repayments refer solely to the CW sourced advance or was their residual ticketus debt to be paid off?) The reason I think this is because DMc is clearly comfortable distinguishing between the ‘Ticketus mechanism’ almost as a fact of life and the lack of any ‘fresh funds’ to fund what he calls working capital although the rest of us would more correctly call rampant losses.

It is important. If it refers solely to the CW guaranteed Wavetower delivered Ticketus deal then this is the Board’s smoking gun right there in front of us.

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on7:00 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Make no mistake, RFC were insolvent when Whyte took over, and had been for some time before that
D&D confirmed this in their first press conference

View Comment

Gaz

GazPosted on7:08 pm - Jul 4, 2013


campsiejoe says:
July 4, 2013 at 7:00 pm

Absolutely.

Mr McCoist didn’t help much with his team’s performances against Malmo and Maribor.

Craig Whyte later said he had no option than to steal the tax in order to keep the club going.

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on7:37 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Gaz says: July 4, 2013 at 7:08 pm

The truth is that RFC should not have been in existence to allow Whyte to take it over
The real Rngers men were spineless cowards, who didn’t have the testicular fortitude to do what had to be done
They couldn’t be seen to be the ones who pulled the plug, and although they feigned horror at Whyte, they were delighted that he became the chosen one, and saved their necks

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:49 pm - Jul 4, 2013


ecobhoy says:
July 4, 2013 at 5:49 pm

“….but I happen to believe that one of the ways I think unacceptable behaviour can be tackled is through a strong and non-biased administration of football.”
===================================================
In my humble opinion it is impossible in Scotland to have non-biased administration of football. What makes it even worse is when you get a situation where someone like Gordon Smith attains a senior role in the game, and apologists line up to tell us he’s not biased, despite all that’s gone before him. Even outsiders like Regan and Doncaster come in and simply fall into line in terms of trying to protect Rangers, because the majority of people in Scotland are biased towards Rangers. Of course, I am biased as a Celtic fan, but the people running the game are not biased towards my club, or any other club, they way they are with Rangers.

View Comment

Gaz

GazPosted on7:55 pm - Jul 4, 2013


campsiejoe says:
July 4, 2013 at 7:37 pm

I couldn’t agree more.

People have tried to portray these characters as the Rangers’ Fergus McCann, though none of them would actually do what he did. There has not been an equivalent for Rangers, not by a long way. As you say they have all been cowards, including the “Rangers Men”.

He bought his club before it died and he took on all of the debts and problems it had at the time. He risked his own money and the money of the people who backed him to do it.

All based on his belief that he could get the Celtic support to buy into it. He risked it all on a share issue which at that time he had no real way of knowing would work, only his belief that the Celtic support would do just that, support it.

No-one has done that for Rangers. Not Murray, not Whyte and not Green. They all did what they did with other people’s money and they lied to the Rangers’ support while doing it. They also left a trail of destruction behind them, not only for Rangers but for Scottish football.

The “Rangers Men” sat back and did nothing, I still think they are waiting for the clean up process, and didn’t care enough to actually save the club.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:24 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Gaz says:
July 4, 2013 at 7:55 pm
==================================
It is an insult to beat any insult ever issued to claim that ANYONE involved with Rangers is the equivalent of Fergus McCann. I don’t think any more needs to be said other than that.

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on8:38 pm - Jul 4, 2013


martybhoy says:
July 4, 2013 at 6:59 pm

This forum is becoming as dull as watching Deadclub on their magnificent ……..yawwwwnnnnn…….run in a competition that culminated in the wrecking of Manchester 2008.
———————————————————————————————
don’t let the door hit you on the erse as you (hopefully) begger off!

View Comment

Avatar

DuplesisPosted on8:39 pm - Jul 4, 2013


@HirsutePursuite @ 5:45pm

“Had the RFC(then IA) CVA been accepted by HMRC, the remainder of the Ticketus contract would have still been sitting in place for Mr Green, Mr Whyte and their funding vehicle Sevco 5088. It was simply impossible for Duff & Phelps to bring Rangers out af administration by way of a CVA as a “debt-free” business.”

I don’t think that’s correct (and I don’t think that’s what Joanna Clark is saying in the article.)

As a general common law contract position, if there’s a repudiatory breach by one party then the “innocent” party has a choice –

(a) accept the repudiation of the contract and sue for damages; or

(b) refuse the repudiation and seek performance of the contract.

In the Ticketus case, what Lord Hodge said was that in Scotland there isn’t a right in an insolvency for the IP to simply terminate the contract, so in principle the above remedies remain for the innocent party.
But, Lord Hodge said, in a liquidation in Scotland, as a general rule a liquidator would not in practice be compelled by a court to implement the contract if the liquidator repudiated it. i.e. in practice in a liquidation the remedy is likely only (a) – damages.

In an administration, Lord Hodge said it would depend on the nature of the administration. If in the course of admin the company turns out to not actually be insolvent, the administrator can’t repudiate the contract at all.

On the other hand, in an administration where the company is insolvent, and can’t exit administration without a CVA, the administrator can choose to repudiate if weighing up the costs and benefits that is the best course for the general body of creditors.

If an administrator does so repudiate, then – as in a liquidation – in principle the innocent party has the choice of (a) or (b). But, as in a liquidation, Lord Hodge said it would only be in exceptional circumstances that a Court would order performance of the contract (if performance would indeed be to the detriment of the creditors as a whole.)

(From the Ticketus judgement)

“[62] … (ii) where the company in administration is insolvent, an administrator may have to decline to perform a contractual obligation of the company in pursuit of the statutory objective or objectives in his proposals if that is in the interests of the company’s creditors as a whole; (iii) should he do so, the court would not, absent exceptional circumstances, force the company to perform those contractual obligations to the detriment of the creditors as a whole….”

As Joanna Clark puts it in her article:

“It follows from this that Scottish administrators will generally (other than in the rare cases in which rescue is a real prospect) be in effectively the same position as Scottish liquidators. That is to say, they may choose to decline to perform the contract (if that is in the best interests of the general body of creditors), placing the company in breach of contract, and, in cases of this type, it will only be (in Lord Hodge’s words) ‘in exceptional circumstances’ that the court will order performance of the contract. The other party’s remedy for such a breach will be a claim in damages, and that claim will rank as an ordinary, unsecured claim against the insolvent estate, often with little prospect of any dividend being received.”

So, in practice it’s likely that the “innocent” party in a repudiatory breach by administrators is left only with a claim in damages.

That’s why in the passage you quoted in your post she says:

“While the situation described above is sometimes referred to as power to disclaim, as was pointed out by Lord Hodge in the RFC plc case, properly analysed, this ‘power’ is no more than a decision to decline to perform with little attendant risk of an 
order being made against the IP by the court requiring performance”

The reference to “little attendant risk” is because in practice an administrator probably won’t be ordered to perform.

Accordingly, whilst Ticketus had the right in principle to decline to accept the repudiation and seek performance of the contract, in practice a Court would have been unlikely to order performance of the contract, so Ticketus’s remedy was almost certainly restricted to a damages claim, which would have been compromised in the CVA.

View Comment

Avatar

CastofThousandsPosted on8:52 pm - Jul 4, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
July 4, 2013 at 5:45 pm

“Neil Doncaster’s statements and D&P’s “option” deal with Sevco 5088, made it so much easier for HMRC to “kill” the old Rangers Football Club.”
————————
You have obviouslly contemplated and researched this angle Hirsute and although well explained, it is a bit complex at first reading. I’ll try and break it down and maybe you can correct me if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

D&P were not in a position to repudiate Ticketus contract successfully without Ticketus consent, which was never going to be forthcoming.

When D&P decided not to perform the contract, as there was little risk of them being forced to do so, CW was stuffed because he had accepted Ticketus money and had offered some kind of personal guarantee.

A penny is starting to drop whilst writing. D&P’s decision not to perform was only valid if liquidation was inevitable. If the old club died. However the asset sale allowed the club to continue anew.

As you say, with Ticketus contract still in place the club could not be debt free. So the stiffing of Ticketus is when the ‘points were thrown’ and the 5088 express ran into the sidings and its route was taken up by Sevco Scotland.

The HMRC position that the club could be sold (albeit just the assets and trademarks), seems at odds with D&P’s decision not to perform the Ticketus contract. I can see how a Company vs Club argument might be useful in engineering Ticketus severance from the ethereal entity.

You seem to imply to some extent a complicity (for want of a better word) between HMRC and the motives of Rangers. As if HMRC wre an instrument wielded in the debt extinction. Thats a huge conspiracy Hirsute. I’ll need to go and lie down and think about it for a while.

View Comment

Avatar

jonnyodPosted on9:05 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Why di HMRC allow a company/club whose previous owner was being pursued by them for multi millions in tax evasion run up £14m of unpaid tax in 7 months .
Just another one of life’s little mysteries or maybe the tax officer dealing with it was on long term sick leave

View Comment

Avatar

CastofThousandsPosted on9:23 pm - Jul 4, 2013


ecobhoy says:
July 4, 2013 at 6:07 pm

“I could be wrong in thinking it was the Ticketus money and it’s just a pity that we haven’t been show the detail sent to Jackson as that would provide the answer I think.”
————————
Here is the document showing Ticketus arrangement under final year of (S)DM.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/146867089/Ticketus-Deal-Sir-David-Murray

If there was still an outstanding Ticketus debt when CW purchased, would it not have been mentioned in the Sale & Purchase Agreement?

The ring fenced account refers to an arrangement put in place by CW I believe. The document I posted earlier is informative in this regard.

Charlotte made a further mention of Bryan Jackson (Recalled by slimshady also) :

Charlotte Fakeovers ‏@CharlotteFakes 19 Jun
@BBCchrismclaug Bryan Jackson appointed May 2011 to advise RFC Board on wrongful trading provisions under Insolvency Act 1986. #HowDidThatGo

Which is the occasion mentioned in the latest document.

I didn’t appreciate that Charlotte had wrote “Old RFC board in covert mode 2011-Whyte unaware.”.
I though all her stuff came from a CW e:mail account.

View Comment

Avatar

pilgrim1888Posted on9:28 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Have just listened to the Neil Doncaster interview on the STV website. His argument about not revealing the TV deal doesn’t make sense. Why would Sky and other broadcasters be so keen to keep the arrangement with Scottish Football so private when they make the deal with the EPL so public. Does Mr Doncaster not realise how foolish he sounds when he talks about openness and transparency and yet refuses to disclose these figures.

View Comment

Avatar

CastofThousandsPosted on9:36 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Smugas says:
July 4, 2013 at 6:54 pm

” The reason I think this is because DMc is clearly comfortable distinguishing between the ‘Ticketus mechanism’ almost as a fact of life and the lack of any ‘fresh funds’ to fund what he calls working capital…”
————————-
Just to quote the pertinent line from the text (thanks for pursuing the point) :

“I explained my concern both on the use of funds from the ring fenced bank account for working capital and the apparent lack of fresh funding. His response was not to panic at the moment as the Administrator would honour the season tickets”.

I’m now reading this as BJ saying even if Ticketus didn’t get their money, season ticket holders would not lose out.

This reads like HirsutePursuit’s earlier conclusion that the stiffing of Ticketus was part of the plan. A plan to sink CW.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on9:52 pm - Jul 4, 2013


jonnyod says:
July 4, 2013 at 9:05 pm
===============================
I have often wondered why Hearts received so many winding up orders from HMRC yet Rangers were not paying millions in tax for months and never received one single W.U.O. In fact, HMRC only moved once Whyte did. All very, very strange.

View Comment

Avatar

borussiabeefburgPosted on10:15 pm - Jul 4, 2013


pilgrim1888 says:
July 4, 2013 at 9:28 pm

Have just listened to the Neil Doncaster interview on the STV website. His argument about not revealing the TV deal doesn’t make sense. Why would Sky and other broadcasters be so keen to keep the arrangement with Scottish Football so private when they make the deal with the EPL so public. Does Mr Doncaster not realise how foolish he sounds when he talks about openness and transparency and yet refuses to disclose these figures.
**********
Doncaster must be embarrassed that a) he operates under double standards by commending the virtue of transparency while failing to disclose details of, for example, the tv deals or such as the ‘five way agreement’, and b) the deals themselves are clearly far short monetarily of that which might have been expected for a nation which provides a large number of football viewers, and a proportionally large amount of football telly time.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:38 pm - Jul 4, 2013


upthehoops says:
July 4, 2013 at 7:49 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 4, 2013 at 5:49 pm

“….but I happen to believe that one of the ways I think unacceptable behaviour can be tackled is through a strong and non-biased administration of football.”
===================================================
In my humble opinion it is impossible in Scotland to have non-biased administration of football.

. . . the majority of people in Scotland are biased towards Rangers. Of course, I am biased as a Celtic fan, but the people running the game are not biased towards my club, or any other club, they way they are with Rangers.
===================================================

Personally I think the majority of people in Scotland couldn’t care less about Rangers or Celtic or football in general and the major problem facing Scottish football IMO is structural decline.

But the answer to unacceptable behaviour isn’t to be found in changing the bias from one club to another but in a non-biased administration and I believe this site can help fight for this.

If I shared your doom-laden predictions for Scottish Football – that it was impossible to administer it without bias – then I would immediately walk away. Your contention that Rangers have the support of the majority of Scots also seems untenable to me given its financial collapse.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:38 pm - Jul 4, 2013


I’m now reading it the same way as you but would correct your last line slightly, if I may.

“This reads like HirsutePursuit’s earlier conclusion that the stiffing of Ticketus was part of the plan. A plan to sink CW.”

No, Ticketus had to be stuffed on the annual agreement simply because the funds to repay them, now the only source of funds, had been pilfered to keep the good ship RFCIA going until such time as the asset/club switch could be performed. That CW didn’t see this coming is surprising and his chicanery to simply swap year 2 advances into the year 1 repayment smacks of this very desperation – what exactly was he intending to do in year three one wonders. But suddenly a pair of big yorkshire hands saw a route to a truly debt free RFC, an infinitely more sellable item back to the blazers hanging round like a bad smell, its just it completely stuffed Whyte on the way past.

View Comment

Avatar

ScottyJimPosted on10:46 pm - Jul 4, 2013


pilgrim1888 says:
July 4, 2013 at 9:28 pm

” ……. Does Mr Doncaster not realise how foolish he sounds when he talks about openness and transparency and yet refuses to disclose these figures. ……”

Mr Doncaster only, allegedly, follows the wishes of his members. He is not refusing to disclose the figures, It is the member clubs that are telling him not to do so. Why are they keeping stum on tv deals and especially the 5-way agreement? Because they must have something toxic to hide. The question we should be asking, is, “Are the clubs up to their collective necks in this conspiracy as well?”

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on11:03 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Castofthousands says:
July 4, 2013 at 9:36 pm

I’m now reading this as BJ saying even if Ticketus didn’t get their money, season ticket holders would not lose out. The stiffing of Ticketus was part of the plan. A plan to sink CW.
====================================================================
I have always felt the possibility that Ticketus not getting their money was more down to a mix of either poor legal advice or not seeking any and previous familiarity that they assumed things would be fine because it had been OK and worked previously under Murray’s regime.

I think if we look back 2/3 years ago it would be hard to believe that Rangers could implode financially the way it did. OK there were some muted comments that the financial madness at the club couldn’t go on but if there hadn’t been the global economic recession I wonder if it would have managed to limp on in some shape or form.

But there were no alerts coming from the SMSM so I’m sure Ticketus, like many others, would believe that Rangers was too big to fail. The reality was, as it turned out, very different.

But then if stiffing Ticketus was part of the plan to stiff CW – who was masterminding that plan and why. I just get the feeling that’s a step too far. I can’t see DM going down that route as he wouldn’t need to as he would know better than anyone that CW would end-up stiffed anyway as the company was terminally bust.

Then I see a problem with Green stiffing Whyte although it’s an attractive solution as swapping Sevco 5088 for Sevco Scotland not only cuts CW out of the deal but changes the company from English legal jurisdicition to Scottish which effectively stiffs Ticketus.

My problem with Green stiffing Ticketus is I have always considered a possibility that Ticketus is in with the bricks in the purchase of the Rangers assets and it may well be that Green was backed by Ticketus money.

I think we need some more bits of the jigsaw to see the whole picture but they may be timed after the cut-off date for the material held by CF.

View Comment

Avatar

davythelotionPosted on11:08 pm - Jul 4, 2013


upthehoops says:
July 4, 2013 at 9:52 pm
9 0 Rate This

jonnyod says:
July 4, 2013 at 9:05 pm
########
HMRC were using the orders to put a fire under Hearts. There was no point in the case of the Wave tower/Group failure to pay. HMRC knew, as did RTC, that CW’s outfit was a busted flush and administration was inevitable. D&P were supposed to dump the debt and the newco would emerge, in the SPL, debt free and lifting the skirt for investor cash.
The small tax case was never to be paid, by either SDM or CW. This emboldened CW in his carefree altitude toward HMRC, hence the withholding of PAYE & NI. As soon as he did this there was no prospect of a CVA being accepted by the main creditor-HMRC.
Hence the lining up of both CG and his merry crew and the discussions with the SFA about how to stay in the game without any money.
They underestimated the anger of the supporters and those chairmen who hold honour above a grubby bundle of fivers.
The regulators were forced to apply the laws, Vox Populi, Vox Dei!
The new club are staring down the twin barrels of a wised up support and a bank book that doesn’t balance.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:16 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Eco – not disagreeing on continuing ticketus nvolvement but don’t forget Ticketus also had a PG from CW. You would assume they would have had a better understanding of his wealth, possibly even his continuing interest in all things blue, than just a Daily Record air traffic report, one would have thought.

Lets not lose sight that the DMc Email was the rangers board (or a loan maverick within it) highlighting its urgent lack of funds, its knowledge of cash based deck chair shuffling and that administration was a very real possibility. 9 days into CW’s reign and long before a CL exit was experienced.

View Comment

Avatar

slimshady61Posted on11:23 pm - Jul 4, 2013


ecobhoy says:
July 4, 2013 at 5:08 pm
——————————-
At the risk of being pedantic, in May 2011 it was ‘Bryan Jackson of PKF’, not BDO. PKF only “merged” with BDO towards the end of 2012.

I believe BDO now have PKF’s history for good or ill, but it is not known if they paid anything for it.

View Comment

Avatar

slimshady61Posted on11:29 pm - Jul 4, 2013


upthehoops says:
July 4, 2013 at 9:52 pm
——————————-
The word from the boys at Portcullis House in Glasgow is that I think the answer to your conundrum may be the fact that HMRC’s VAT file on RFC was kept in a locked cabinet at Portcullis House in Glasgow, with the keys held by a sole senior Customs official. It’s understood he kept his season ticket in the cabinet as well, for safekeeping you understand.

View Comment

Avatar

slimshady61Posted on11:31 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Sorry, was busy laughing at Kevin Bridges and pressed ‘send’ whilst still editing, but i think you get the message?

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on11:32 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Castofthousands says:
July 4, 2013 at 9:23 pm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/146867089/Ticketus-Deal-Sir-David-Murray

If there was still an outstanding Ticketus debt when CW purchased, would it not have been mentioned in the Sale & Purchase Agreement?
===================================================================

If you look at the ticket reconciliation document there are a couple of interesting entries but I’m having difficulty understanding them although I think they are relevant.

2,079 tickets priced as if sold in December 2010 (actually to be sold in April / June 2011) with a value of £948K. The entry could be read that Ticketus had been paid the £948K previously so the £948K coming in in April/June 2011 would go into the ring-fenced account.

The above entry is followed an additional entry for 2,218 tickets with a value of £1.189M which, as the list is in date order, suggests it came after the previous entry. It showed £757K had been previously paid to Ticketus with only £433K left payable. If I am understanding the document that could mean another £757K into the ring-fenced account.

So it seems that money could be going into the account in April/June to be used for operating expenses. But it would be nice if someone with accountancy knowledge could give their opinion as I might be totally wrong in my assumptions.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on11:34 pm - Jul 4, 2013


Castofthousands says:
July 4, 2013 at 9:23 pm
———————————————-

And of course the Reconciliation form shows £0 payable to Ticketus so it wouldn’t show as a Ticketus debt.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on11:47 pm - Jul 4, 2013


slimshady61 says:
July 4, 2013 at 11:23 pm
ecobhoy says:
July 4, 2013 at 5:08 pm
——————————-
At the risk of being pedantic, in May 2011 it was ‘Bryan Jackson of PKF’, not BDO. PKF only “merged” with BDO towards the end of 2012. I believe BDO now have PKF’s history for good or ill, but it is not known if they paid anything for it.
=====================================================
No you’re absolutely correct and it’s funny as I thought he had been somewhere else before so I googled him + BDO and got the BDO website which states: ‘ He has been a partner since 1985’.

So now I know why HMRC wanted BDO – they obviously don’t believe in keeping alive the ‘history’ of lesser entities it has gobbled-up and indeed appear to be very efficient at airbrushing them out 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

DenPosted on11:53 pm - Jul 4, 2013


The McIntyre memo suggests to me that the Directors in place before the Whyte takeover and still on the board afterwards had concerns about the financial position of the company before and after the takeover.

Directors can be punished for trading while insolvent and they may have been checking their own position. He didn’t specify who Jackson was and this being one week after the takeover it suggests that they had resolved to talk to him before the takeover.

I believe the new investor was Whyte replacing the unwilling Lloyds. this was seen as positive (devil and deep blue).

The ring fenced account may be the “Bank of Scotland RFC season ticket account 2011” referred to by Phil Betts 6 July 2011. Betts states that Ticketus had sight of this account and they spotted £1.3M being transfered to another Bof S Account. Ticketus has purchased 23154 tickets at £415.3 less 4% discount; £9.3m and now that the tickets were sold were due 23154 *415.3 = £9.6M. This account would normally be under Ticketus control but LLoyds were being “tricky” (Ross Bryan 29 June 2011) so Rangers had control of it and dipped in although the money was not strictly theirs..

There was clearly major concern among the Directors that funding was not being received as anticipated. The advice was ‘not to panic at the moment’, I would ask WHEN SHOULD I PANIC.

As for an administrator honouring season tickets, perhaps he was just concerned that by selling the STs and going into administrtion they would be liable to a penalty if they carried on selling them in this situation.

Clearly some major concerns by some of the board (soon to be removed).

BDO should be looking very closely.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the reason that McIntyre was suspended although I suspect that Whyte wanted his own man in the Finance Dept.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:04 am - Jul 5, 2013


Smugas says:
July 4, 2013 at 11:16 pm

Eco – not disagreeing on continuing ticketus nvolvement but don’t forget Ticketus also had a PG from CW. You would assume they would have had a better understanding of his wealth, possibly even his continuing interest in all things blue, than just a Daily Record air traffic report, one would have thought.
=========================================================================

I hear what you say but surely the Ticketus early warning radar would have detected that CW couldn’t afford to even fill his lawnmower with petrol let alone his stealth bomber with wonga.

But even if it was worthless – unbeknown to Ticketus – I’ve never really understood why Ticketus wanted the PG if they actually thought they owned the tickets after advancing the cash to CW unless they realised the potential problem that when they advanced it CW didn’t really own Rangers as the bank did until they got their loan repaid. Did Ticketus believe that CW really did have off the radar wealth and if they did I wonder who vouched for him? It would need to have been someone Ticketus knew and trusted IMO.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:28 am - Jul 5, 2013


Den says:
July 4, 2013 at 11:53 pm

The ring fenced account may be the “Bank of Scotland RFC season ticket account 2011″ referred to by Phil Betts 6 July 2011. Betts states that Ticketus had sight of this account and they spotted £1.3M being transfered to another Bof S Account.
=====================================================
I don’t know if you’ve noticed my post at ecobhoy says: July 4, 2013 at 11:32 pm

But possibly that explains where the £1.3 million came from. But how would Ticketus have sight of that bank transfer – could it have come in any way from MRC who were contracted to monitor daily cash flow at Rangers or could an Ibrox mole have blown the whistle?

I also wonder what the heading in McIntyre’s email means viz: Matchday Services Agreement?

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:30 am - Jul 5, 2013


CF has explained why CW didn’t know about the McIntyre email and it reinforces the belief it might have led to McIntyre’s suspension in whole or in part.

Charlotte Fakeovers ‏@CharlotteFakes 1h

Bain/McIntyre full email accounts and archive were found on Witheys laptop when surrendered, hence why some posts/email never involved CW.

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on12:40 am - Jul 5, 2013


martybhoy says:
July 4, 2013 at 11:33 pm

I’m outta here.
——————–
let’s hope you find an appropriate forum to vent your spleen – this one was certainly not designed for your partisan outbursts

View Comment

Avatar

Drew PeacockPosted on12:56 am - Jul 5, 2013


ecobhoy says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:30 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How did CF get acess to the emails on Witheys laptop?

View Comment

Avatar

Drew PeacockPosted on1:00 am - Jul 5, 2013


ecobhoy says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:28 am
The ring fenced account may be the “Bank of Scotland RFC season ticket account 2011″ referred to by Phil Betts 6 July 2011. Betts states that Ticketus had sight of this account and they spotted £1.3M being transfered to another Bof S Account.
=====================================================
I don’t know if you’ve noticed my post at ecobhoy says: July 4, 2013 at 11:32 pm

But possibly that explains where the £1.3 million came from. But how would Ticketus have sight of that bank transfer – could it have come in any way from MRC who were contracted to monitor daily cash flow at Rangers or could an Ibrox mole have blown the whistle?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They would have been able to view the account online and would have seen the £1.3M transferred out. I think the reference to Lloyds being “tricky” is that they wouldn’t completely “ring fence” the cash and allow only Ticketus access to it on account of them being in for £18 or so million.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on1:00 am - Jul 5, 2013


Duplesis says:
July 4, 2013 at 8:39 pm
5 2 Rate This
============================
The court would be highly unlikely to compel an administrator to perform any onerous contractual obligation. Absolutely, I could not agree more!!

But the point Joanna was making is quite simple. Administrators cannot “cancel” a contract. All they can do is refuse to perform it.

The specific point I was highlighting, is that the statutory moratorium providing protection from onerous contracts ceases to apply if/when the company exits administration via a CVA.

If the solvent party refuses to accept the contract has been terminated – and I believe this was Ticketus’s position – the damages value is moot. As the contract survives until the solvent party accepts termination, the damages (if sought!) would be limited to the specific part of the contract left unperformed during administration.

If I remember correctly, Duff & Phelps stated that the Ticketus claim for voting purposes had been disallowed in its entirety. This fits in with the position of Ticketus refusing to accept termination of the contract. If the contract was still live and no damages claim had been made, they were not creditors for the purposes of the CVA.

The RFC contract with Ticketus was scheduled over a 4 year period. Unless the club remained in administration for the entire lifetime of the contract, Ticketus would be contractually entitled to expect Rangers to sell season tickets on their behalf in each of those years.

The reality is, in my opinion, that the continuing existence of such an onerous contract would have prevented the company from exiting administration. It was, I’m sure, a huge relief to Duff & Phelps, that HMRC voted as they did and the Ticketus contract was not tested further.

The contract, of course, cannot and did not survive liquidation and has no consequence for the new club.

Liquidation suited Mr Green and Duff & Phelps. It completely shafted Ticketus and Craig Whyte.

View Comment

Avatar

SelfassessorPosted on5:22 am - Jul 5, 2013


One of the things this site, and RTC’s site before it, has thrived on has been the constant drip of information from which this august online community have been able to digest, investigate, analyse, hypothesise, synthesise and most importantly debate what is potentially the biggest long term scandal in sporting history.

One of the successes of deadco’s new chairman has been achieving their collective buttoning of the navy blue cardigans. The……Let’s keep the dirty whyte shirt (sic) with Yorkshire pudding gravy stains (sic) hidden so that we can keep up the pretence of being the upright establishment club….approach.

Lets all be patient. Ignore the transient attention deflectors and keep at this. Despite Walter’s fine efforts it won’t be long before the button pops on a cardigan to expose a bit of dirty washing.

View Comment

Avatar

SelfassessorPosted on5:31 am - Jul 5, 2013


Where’s Stunney by the way? Haven’t had a good morning paper review in ages!

View Comment

Avatar

TSFMPosted on5:40 am - Jul 5, 2013


Selfassessor says:

July 5, 2013 at 5:31 am (Edit)

Where’s Stunney by the way? Haven’t had a good morning paper review in ages!
_____________________________________________________________________

He’s in pretty poor health SA, and consequently unable to post. However he is watching us 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

DuplesisPosted on6:43 am - Jul 5, 2013


@HirsutePursuit at 1am

If I understand you, what you’re saying in effect is that the innocent party can simply refuse to accept the repudiation during the administration period, and then when the company exits administration via a CVA at that stage seek performance of the contract.

That as I read Joanna Clark’s commentary isn’t what she is saying, since she specifically confirms that after the decision is taken to repudiate the contract, most likely the innocent party’s only remedy is a claim for damages. She doesn’t at any stage say another option is just to wait until exit via the CVA and seek performance at that time.

That would be my understanding too. If an administrator repudiates a contract for the benefit of the general creditors, and the innocent party indicates that it does not accept repudiation, then in my view what would happen is that administrator will return to the court to seek directions. The administration wouldn’t conclude until the court had decided whether the innocent party was going to be able to successfully insist on performance or not.

Quite possibly the repudiation of the contract and conversion to a damages claim is a necessary pre-requisite of the company exiting by CVA (as it probably would have been in The Rangers Football Club PLC (IA)). In fact if the repudiation is in the context of an exit by CVA, that’s almost inevitable since the only basis upon which the administrator can seek to repudiate is if repudiation furthers one of the statutory objectives.

There’s obviously little point in having the company exit by CVA, and then that agreement with the creditors having to be breached on such exit because of an outstanding claim for performance which undermines that CVA.

If the administrators get directions that the company shouldn’t be required to perform they would then value the claim on a damages basis and incorporate that into the company debts to be subject to the CVA. At that stage the innocent party can either accept or challenge under Schedule B1 para 74 (although if the Court has already issued directions, the latter is unlikely to be successful of course.) The innocent party won’t then be able to seek performance after the company exits via CVA, since their claim is compromised in the CVA.

If the administrators get directions that there are exceptional circumstances and that the innocent party can require performance (or if the para 74 challenge is successful), then the administrators are back to square one and the CVA can’t proceed.

In the Ticketus case, D&P wanted a specific direction that there could be “termination” of the contract and that Ticketus couldn’t compel performance. Lord Hodge declined to give those specific directions because he didn’t have sufficient information on the terms of the negotiations with the various bidders at that time. Ticketus argued that no directions should be given at all, but Lord Hodge instead gave a general formulation of the law.

As at the point it’s clear that repudiation of the Ticketus contract would be required to exit by CVA, the administrators would have been able to provide the Court with information on the cost/benefit analysis to the creditors as a whole on the questions of repudiation and performance of the Ticketus contract, so the difficulty which prevented specific directions in the Ticketus case should be gone.

D&P ultimately sought to reject Ticketus’s claim as a whole – i.e. not even allow the damages claim. The basis upon which they were doing so isn’t specifically stated, but I think it’s clear that it was that they regarded the Ticketus deal as “financial assistance.” I don’t think it’s because Ticketus were maintaining the right to performance, and that brought Ticketus outwith the CVA.

D&P confirmed to Lord Hodge in the Ticketus case that they intended to challenge the deal under the financial assistance provisions of section 678 of the Companies Act 2006 (although this challenge wasn’t relevant to the directions they were at that time seeking.) (para [16] of the judgement) We also now have the CF tapes in which D&P state to Whyte that their view on taking legal advice is that the deal was challengeable as financial assistance.

D&P’s views on this may of course turn out to be wrong, but I think that’s the basis on which they sought to argue Ticketus had no claim for the purposes of voting rights.

In the CVA, they did show Ticketus’s claim as still extant (and valued it on a damages basis for the whole of the principal sum, not just the debt outstanding at the time.) In a note to the CVA (page 44, note 10), they said Ticketus’s claim might be reduced to nil if the claim was found not to be valid against the company – so again that’s consistent with the “financial assistance” challenge being maintained at that time.

View Comment

Avatar

SelfassessorPosted on6:46 am - Jul 5, 2013


TSFM – thanks for the news on Stunney. I’m very sorry hear this. Please pass on my best wishes and warmest regards.

View Comment

Avatar

jonnyodPosted on7:17 am - Jul 5, 2013


IMO
The peepil in charge of the old club knew after trying to offload it for years that there was only ever going to be one way the old club would go and that was death and lets face it that solved all the problems .
The old club had been running unsustainably for possibly 10 years or more .
Massive borrowing ,tax evasion schemes ,inflated asset valuation ,strange player transfers ,front loaded shirt deals ,massive cash injections being swallowed up ,many years of overspending .Everything was being hawked off in advance just to keep the business treading water and none of the above could be carried on indefinitely and no new buyer would ever be found if it carried on through a sale .
Liquidation ,although a bitter pill to swallow would have gotten rid of all the above problems in one fell swoop.
The only problem left was to convince the customers (supporters ) that it was still the same club and the creditors that it was a totally different business and that is where the SFA/SPL/MSM come in .IMO all would have been sounded out prior to this saga and would have given assurances of compliance .All that has gone on points strongly at this scenario and the only fly in the ointment so far was the supporters of the other clubs and them alone .The chairmen of the other clubs were probably surprised at the strength of feeling by their paying customers and could not risk their own existence to possibly save any new Ragers ,so all they could do was put up a unified front to appease their fans and then pressure the SFL clubs to limit the damage and vote for DIV 1 entry .The problem was that the SFL clubs were never sounded out beforehand and they could see the financial benefits of voting the new club into Div 3 .
So for me the whole sham was planned long ago and if it was not for the supporters of the other clubs Sevco 2012 would be sitting in the SPL bought by the Ragers men that would not settle the old cubs debts and lording it over everyone just like the old club did and patting each other on the back behind the scenes .
All we can really do is record every perverse ,bent, broken and downright deplorable bias decision afforded to this new entity which (with every one ) exposes the total corruption and deep rooted bias in our so called game in Scotland .

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:25 am - Jul 5, 2013


ecobhoy says:
July 4, 2013 at 10:38 pm
10 12 Rate This
If I shared your doom-laden predictions for Scottish Football – that it was impossible to administer it without bias – then I would immediately walk away. Your contention that Rangers have the support of the majority of Scots also seems untenable to me given its financial collapse.
==========================================================

The real collapse for Rangers was the votes by other Scottish football clubs not to allow them firstly into the SPL, then Division 1. The financial collapse was immaterial at that point because the intention was simply to brush that aside and play SPL football as if nothing had changed. The fact fans of other clubs were motivated enough to petition their chairmen does not alter my view that demographically Rangers will have more fans than any other club. Also, it does not alter the undisputed fact that the SFA, the First Minister, several MSP’s, and several Westminster MP’s wanted Rangers to be given preferential treatment despite their crimes against society. It does not alter the undisputed fact that several people perceived to be anti-Rangers received threats and intimidation, even though in cases like the SFA they were doing all they could to help them. Against this backdrop, which has existed for over 100 years, how do you suggest we are going to have Scottish football managed in a non-biased way? The Government don’t have a referendum on every major decision, just as Scottish Football fans won’t be able to overturn everything they don’t like that’s happening in the game. For simple demographic reasons, or the more sinister possibility of intimidation, Rangers will generally receive better treatment than others. As for saying I should walk away if I feel like that, it’s just like trying to stop a justified point by telling someone they are paranoid.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on7:49 am - Jul 5, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:00 am
9 0 Rate This

… The contract, of course, cannot and did not survive liquidation and has no consequence for the new club.

Liquidation suited Mr Green and Duff & Phelps. It completely shafted Ticketus and Craig Whyte.
———–

HP,
Doesn’t this debunk the theory that D&P were Whyte’s men?

View Comment

Avatar

willmacufreePosted on8:28 am - Jul 5, 2013


Selfassessor says:
July 5, 2013 at 6:46 am
13 0 Rate This

TSFM – thanks for the news on Stunney. I’m very sorry hear this. Please pass on my best wishes and warmest regards.

Can I put my name to SA’s on this. Stunney, hope to see you back delivering, and posting.
On that subject, anybody heard from Goosey?

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins Finest.Posted on8:38 am - Jul 5, 2013


CHARLES Green has sensationally waded back into the Rangers boardroom battle to demand a major shake-up.

The ousted chief executive — still the biggest shareholder at Ibrox — is calling for urgent changes amid fears of a looming cash crisis at the club.

Green has lodged a legal letter saying ex-chairman Malcolm Murray — described by insiders as his “nemesis” — must be axed as a director.

He also wants Murray’s ally Phil Cartmell ditched — and for bus tycoon James Easdale to finally join the board after months of wrangling.

Sources close to Green claim he’s even considering returning to run the club in a day-to-day role if changes aren’t made.

His demands came in a formal request for an emergency general meeting of shareholders, which the club was examining yesterday.

An insider said: “Charles and other investors are unhappy with how the club is being run — especially the influence Malcolm has.

“There are worries that cash raised in the stock market float last year is being rapidly eaten into. Costs must be cut and revenues raised or Rangers are in trouble.

“But all we see is players being signed and season ticket prices being frozen.”

The move comes weeks after a separate group of investors loyal to Green made similar demands for a crisis meeting.

Green, 60, fronted the consortium which took over Rangers last year but quit as chief exec in April amid claims of links to shamed ex-owner Craig Whyte.

Rangers would not comment last night. Green could not be reached.

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on8:39 am - Jul 5, 2013


Chuckies back…………………………..

CHARLES Green has sensationally waded back into the Rangers boardroom battle to demand a major shake-up.
The ousted chief executive — still the biggest shareholder at Ibrox — is calling for urgent changes amid fears of a looming cash crisis at the club.
Green has lodged a legal letter saying ex-chairman Malcolm Murray — described by insiders as his “nemesis” — must be axed as a director.
He also wants Murray’s ally Phil Cartmell ditched — and for bus tycoon James Easdale to finally join the board after months of wrangling.
Sources close to Green claim he’s even considering returning to run the club in a day-to-day role if changes aren’t made.
His demands came in a formal request for an emergency general meeting of shareholders, which the club was examining yesterday.
An insider said: “Charles and other investors are unhappy with how the club is being run — especially the influence Malcolm has.
“There are worries that cash raised in the stock market float last year is being rapidly eaten into. Costs must be cut and revenues raised or Rangers are in trouble.
“But all we see is players being signed and season ticket prices being frozen.”
The move comes weeks after a separate group of investors loyal to Green made similar demands for a crisis meeting.
Green, 60, fronted the consortium which took over Rangers last year but quit as chief exec in April amid claims of links to shamed ex-owner Craig Whyte.
Rangers would not comment last night. Green could not be reached

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/scottishnews/4998108/Green-demands-Gers-showdown-ex-chief-wants-boardroom-cull.html#ixzz2Y9e92ZnX

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins Finest.Posted on8:42 am - Jul 5, 2013


‘Green, 60, fronted the consortium which took over Rangers last year but quit as chief exec in April amid claims of links to shamed ex-owner Craig Whyte.’
How many mistakes in this one sentence from The Sun?

View Comment

Avatar

slimshady61Posted on8:43 am - Jul 5, 2013


Drew Peacock says:
July 5, 2013 at 12:56 am
———————————
With the passage of time, it is inevitable that CF will, inadvertently or deliberately, disclose matters that lead towards his/her identity, which would be unfortunate given that Wolf Whistles 1 & 2 are cranking up the rhetoric (if I can use such a term to describe two fat old ‘wimmin’ having a cringeworthy blether) about “days of reckoning”.

Thankfully for CF, for the time being they seem to have focused their ire on Graham Speirs as the bete blu turned bete noire – which perhaps explains why Speirs has taken up the unlikely hobby of camping?

Fortunately for CF, it seems as if the only day of reckoning that will occur is the impending administration event for Sevco.

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins Finest.Posted on8:44 am - Jul 5, 2013


Thanks NTHM. I forgot to add the link.

View Comment

Gaz

GazPosted on9:00 am - Jul 5, 2013


upthehoops says:
July 4, 2013 at 9:52 pm

Well they did petition the Court for an arrestment and the Sheriff’s Officers did go to Ibrox. That doesn’t just happen overnight and without a lot of other “negotiations” having taken place first. Albeit I know that did relate to the debt from the small tax case, which rangers had accepted, agreed to pay, got a European licence on the strength of that arrangement and then reneged on.

There was a lot going on at that time, what with the above, the ongoing appeal process for the big tax case, and Rangers we now know not paying their tax bills as they arose. Clearly unable to pay those bills as they arose so really just trading insolvent. Long before 14th February.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:27 am - Jul 5, 2013


Duplesis
http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/scotland-home/10262-termination-and-disclaimer-of-contracts-under-scots-insolvency-law

WHAT EFFECT DOES A SCOTTISH 
IP’S ‘DISCLAIMER’ HAVE ON THE UNDERLYING CONTRACT?


While the situation described above is sometimes referred to as power to disclaim, as was pointed out by Lord Hodge in the RFC plc case, properly analysed, this ‘power’ is no more than a decision to decline to perform with little attendant risk of an 
order being made against the IP by the court requiring performance.


So far as the underlying contract is concerned, the breach, or repudiation, of the contract by the IP needs to be accepted by the other party to bring it to an end. Acceptance may be express or implied by actions (for example, where a landlord accepts the return of keys from an IP 
and proceeds to take possession of 
the premises).


In certain circumstances, the solvent party may wish the contract to remain in place, notwithstanding that it is not being performed. In that event, the solvent party may wish to make it clear that the IP’s repudiation is not being accepted.


I don’t think this could be any clearer.

This administration became a (lucrative) runaway train. There came a point when they had nothing else to lose. They would grasp at any straw. If they believed the financial assistance case was watertight, there would have been no reason to seek opinion from Lord Hodge.

I don’t have time today to deal with the financial assistance question; but, imo, this is no more than a handy smokescreen. To give it validity, you need to believe that everything done under the power of administration was done for the reasons given by Mr Clark & Mr Whitehouse.

You would then, as an example, have to believe Paul Clark believed he was correct – in legal terms -when he said:”“As administrators, our primary statutory function was to ensure Rangers continued as a business and this was achieved.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19981266

Now that is pretty basic stuff for an IP!!!!

Let me say again, administrators have no power to terminate a contract – only to decline to perform.

I have seen absolutely nothing that would lead me to believe that Ticketus had accepted the termination of the contract prior to the CVA vote.

If a CVA was agreed and Ticketus refused to accept repudiation of their contract with RFC, Duff & Phelps could not have released the club “debt-free” from administration.

As you say: “They would have been back to square one.”

View Comment

Gaz

GazPosted on9:31 am - Jul 5, 2013


HirsutePursuit says:
July 5, 2013 at 1:00 am

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

Absolutely.

As discussed at the time, Rangers getting a CVA would not have left a tenable business, with so much money being lost year on year. They were clearly already struggling to make ends meet and for Ticketus to take many millions out for several seasons would not have worked.

It is difficult to see how they could have exited administration in those circumstances, even if the creditors had lost out in a CVA. It would not have been a business with any real prospect of survival.

Liquidation was the only real option from the start. Either that or someone coming in with a shed load of money to throw away.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:46 am - Jul 5, 2013


Just on the “Lloyds being difficult” thing. Again I go back to my understanding that Ticketus advance short term funding. The recipient club gather up the following years ST subs and ring fence them in an account for the scheduled repayments to Ticketus. It would appear that Ticketus ordinarily “have sight” of this ring fenced account hence the reconciliation statement provided. Now, fast forward to May 2011. Lloyds are in for 18m (thanks to Gav) and desperate to get out as indeed they have been ever since they took on BoS. At that date what they actually hold, I believe, is an 18m overdraft plus a £9.6m account in credit, but earmarked for repayment to Ticketus. PRIOR to receiving their £18m (or perhaps having concerns that the £18m might have problems clearing or some such) I “would be difficult” about the £9.6m in credit as well. Thats not to say I would object to it being dipped right enough, since it keeps my 18m O/D capped.

View Comment

Comments are closed.