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

Posted on by

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?

 

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.

About Trisidium

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

4,181 thoughts on “The SPFL— the case for revolution, evolution and a case of the Hamilton Whackies !”


  2. ecobhoy says:
    July 5, 2013 at 1:07 pm
    ———————————————–
    Thanks for the link.Again i appear to be missing your point regarding the shares,don’t you have to be a PLC to trade a company’s shares,as a limited company trfcLIMITED are unable to trade publicy in shares,that status has not changed.As yet i,ve been unable to find out who the shareholders are as they haven’t been declared.

    Shareholders
    Shareholder details have not been filed for THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED.

    http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC425159/THE-RANGERS-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED/directors-shareholders#shareholders


  3. StevieBC 4.02 pm

    Don’t panic. The good ship scottish football is way ahead of you and has gotten rid of all the old conflicted deadwood……what……..oh!

    And TSFM – re legal redress falling on the ex125 yold members. Ooo you are awful……..but i like you.

    On the October 11 negotiations, a couple of points. Don’t forget the CO/SR night out with CW, that presumably gave rise to the information held by the SPL board (admittedly contrived link) on the 31st. Also, ecobhoy, I understand it is standard practise for the general members meeting such as that on the 31st Oct that decided to give QM the go ahead to be IMMEDIATELY followed by the board meeting. No time for new information to be received me thinks. Complicit, or two faced or both.


  4. Apologies, my post crossed with TJB’s. Still worth checking dates though.


  5. Celtic Paranoia says:
    July 5, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    It is only my perception, but I would be surprised if the majority of posters here were sharing their thoughts and opinions caring not a jot if anyone agreed with them or not and with no intention of persuading anyone of the merits of their statements.

    You care not who agrees with your view and that is absolutely fine but adds no more weight to your comments than those of anyone else.
    ===========================================================
    I would never be so bold as to perceive what was in the thoughts of the majority of posters here. If they are anything like me then those thoughts may quite easily change according to circumstances and new information. Obviously, I would hope that the majority of posters have enough of an open mind to re-examine their position in the event of such changes.

    However, after a re-examination they may still believe their original belief is firmly based and still hold to it and I have no quarrel or quibble with that even if their position is diametrically opposed to mine. I would hope that some people might find some of what I say of interest and that it does cause them perhaps to think afresh about some issues. But that isn’t something I demand or even expect from anyone and I am happy for them to decide whether they even read anything I post and what their decision is on the material.

    So in that sense you are correct that I care not who agrees with me but that is a world away from me personally not caring what I write and the positions I hold and others will judge what weight to place on them.


  6. Smugas says:
    July 5, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    ecobhoy, I understand it is standard practise for the general members meeting such as that on the 31st Oct that decided to give QM the go ahead to be IMMEDIATELY followed by the board meeting. No time for new information to be received me thinks. Complicit, or two faced or both.
    ================================================================

    Yea the date of the Board Meeting is interesting but I have the feeling they wouldn’t want this one to immediately follow the General Meeting so as to establish the fiction that new info had been received.

    I think it would stretch credibility a bit far to later explain that they didn’t know about the Rangers probs during the General Meeting but just learnt about it almost immediately after in time for the Board Meeting.

    But you make me think of an interesting point and that is perhaps none of the Board Members or only a very select one or two knew on the 31 October 2011 about the Rangers situation.

    At the end of the day the chief executive knew on 6 October 2011 and he had agreed to an outline paper being drawn-up which included the SFA. Surely he must have told someone else about it but who? He didn’t pass it on the the club reps at the General Meeting and he may well not have told Board Members prior to their meeting which as you saw TJB puts at 4 November 2011.

    So is it possible that the chief executive had passed the info on Rangers to the SFA before he informed anyone in the SPL?


  7. MRC

    And documents evidencing the agreement of HMRC to the non-payment of monthly payrolltaxes and VAT from October 2011, and the ongoing discussions that were taking place withHMRC generally during this period

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/151897900/BDO-Fact-Finding
    ———————————————————————————-
    Looks like Craig Whyte is claiming that HMRC gave him permission not to pay PAYE,that would be an interesting tape to hear if one were to exist,would anyone taxes ever again? 🙂


  9. Robert Coyle says:
    July 5, 2013 at 4:22 pm
    ecobhoy says:
    July 5, 2013 at 1:07 pm
    ———————————————–
    Thanks for the link.Again i appear to be missing your point regarding the shares,don’t you have to be a PLC to trade a company’s shares,as a limited company trfcLIMITED are unable to trade publicy in shares,that status has not changed.As yet i,ve been unable to find out who the shareholders are as they haven’t been declared.
    ===================================================================

    As you say a Plc can have its shares listed on a market such as AIM to provide the opportunity for them to be bought and sold by the public.

    But a Ltd company can also trade shares privately to raise capital and this was done by TRFCL to purchase the Rangers assets from D&P before the formation of RIFC Plc. I have simplified the explanation with TRFCL because there are bits which still aren’t clear about the original investors and whether their loans were backed be debentures rather than shares or as a mixture of both.

    But that doesn’t affect the basic position that a private Ltd company can trade its shares although with most small Ltd companies all of the shareholding is usually held by the directors.

    A number of the TRFCL shareholders were identified and identifiable from various sources but they should be shown when the annual return is published on Companies House – it is currently overdue for TRFCL.


  10. Robert Coyle says:
    July 5, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    And documents evidencing the agreement of HMRC to the non-payment of monthly payrolltaxes and VAT from October 2011, and the ongoing discussions that were taking place withHMRC generally during this period

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/151897900/BDO-Fact-Finding
    ———————————————————————————-
    Looks like Craig Whyte is claiming that HMRC gave him permission not to pay PAYE,that would be an interesting tape to hear if one were to exist,would anyone taxes ever again? 🙂
    ——————————————————————————————————-

    Well the sh*t is going to hit the fan as BDO have asked CW for the tapes – seems they don’t have the same problems as the SMSM.


  12. TSFM
    The core point about the 4 OF game TV deal is of course that if it became a condition of the size of the deal, it turned Scottish football into a form of WWW entertainment that either the SFA or SPL should have rejected precisely because it brought about the very thing that supporters rebelled against and that is the removal of sporting integrity from the package.
    The lack of checks and balances (already covered ) iis part of the cause but I would be surprised if the condition was suggested by the SPL. So if Sky think they might have a case to pursue they will open a pandora’s box on an empire already seen as one for whom integrity and ethics could not go much lower.
    With BT Vision a credible rival Sky can do without any more public distaste.
    This is not to excuse the footballing side in this tango, but to point out that it takes two to.
    With so much money at stake that only enriches football and not its followers you can see why subsequently so much energy was spent trying to force through the unacceptable.


  13. Good evening all
    Have been away for 3 weeks trekking through the Malaysian jungle and am currently trying to catch up with events on this never ending drama .From mosquitoes, leeches and smoke from the Indonesian land burning back to the media midges, blood sucking busboys and the smoke of James Traynors spliffing interviews, I feel as if I’ve never been away .
    When one wants to conduct the orchestra you must first turn your back on the crowd
    but when the music is over they have to turn and face the audience .
    Load up with rotten fruit ,I feel their judgement time is coming soon.


  14. And BDO want from CW:

    ‘Any documents showing D&P’s unauthorised use without charge of the directors’ box/hospitality packages at Ibrox (we will also ask Amanda Millar for any additional evidence as suggested by you).’

    Well imagine that – it looks as though Rangeritis can be caught by anyone 🙂


  16. To Echobiy and CF’s point, would it not be stretching it too far for the 4 games per season requirement to be put in there as reason to mitigate for what they knew was coming – hence the Armageddon and loss of money if TRFC don’t get into the SPL. I cannot for the life of me see why and ESPN/Sky representative would make that as a criteria given that they would have no inkling of the possibility that TRFC would never be in top half od SPL. As we all said at the time, it sounds ludicrous for any organization to set sporting standards aside and come up with this criteria.

    My opinion is it was put there deliberately for a purpose – the purpose being without putting TRFC into SPL, the whole Sky deal would disintegrate.

    Now like the 5 way agreement, no one has ever shown the Sky contract where it says that 4 TRFC v Celtic games were required and what would happen if it did not happen. Of course the MSM have forgotten to ask for proof as well………


  17. There was an interesting post today showing that ragers youth development LTD had been dissolved .
    This I believe was the company set up in 2003 when the cost of running Murky Park was becoming a problem for the old club .
    If I remember Murky Park was reported as costing in the region of £2m PA to run ,so the Mint passed the cost onto a consortium (stop laughing at the back) of businessmen (4 of them ) and the deal was they would brunt the cost of Murky Park and would get the money from the sale of any up and coming superstar from the conveyer belt .
    The interesting thing to me though is that the half time draw at Ibrokes has always stated it was for the youth ,in fact it is billed as the Rising Stars lotto .
    So if it is for the youth and rising stars then they don’t belong to Ragers ,so who gets the cash ,also if this deal is now null and void (due to the dissolved company ) will sevco be footing the £2m running cost bill next year .
    I must admit it has always been a deal that has bothered me and it seems it also bothered the RST back in 2003 also


  18. Exiled Celt says:
    July 5, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    4 games per season requirement to be put in there as reason to mitigate for what they knew was coming . . . My opinion is it was put there deliberately for a purpose – the purpose being without putting TRFC into SPL, the whole Sky deal would disintegrate.
    ==============================================================

    I wonder whether there was ever any previous stipulations about Old Firm games required in the contracts?

    If not, then it becomes very easy to believe it was a ploy to provide a cast-iron excuse to retain Rangers in the SPL with a financial lever affecting every SPL club to bind them to the decision. Perhaps if fans hadn’t been ignored and treated with contempt for so long by the footballing authorities the thought might have crossed their minds that the fans had had enough.

    You’re right – the clause might not be in any contract document and that would tell a tale. So it’s get Sky to sign on the dotted line – whether the clause is there or not – and at some point confirm to Sky that Rangers will not be allowed to fail so everything’s as is.

    Then when the fan revolt kicks-off Sky are caught in a trap because if they walk away at that point then they will seriously p*ss off every football supporter in Scotland which would hit their business and not just on the footballing aspect.

    I think at some stage Sky would have extracted financial retribution against the SPL but they may avoid tha with BT arriving as a main playert. However to be safe I think the SPL should be dusting off the fan football feasibility study in due course – just in case.


  19. Bawsman says:
    July 5, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    “Rangers were never, ever, ever, ever going to get a CVA.”
    ————————-
    A CVA may not have been achievable for all the well founded reasons you have stated. However that does not mean that in CW’s world the same reality existed. I’ll post an old Charlotte document which is a string of correspondence concerning advice on the purchase. The highlighted sections on page 11 and 13 are the most pertinent but the whole string is possibly more revealing now in the light of experience than it was when Charlotte tweeted it on 17th May :

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/142089135/Duff-and-Phelps-Advice

    For reasons stated by you and other posters a CVA may never have been a reality and liquidation may have always been the only option. I’m just curious as to why CW seemed to show a keen interest in CVA. Liquidation was likely to see him hobbled by Ticketus debt so from that point of view I can see why a CVA would have been attractive for him.

    I keep thinking about his mysterious personal guarantee. As others have stated, why would Ticketus advance CW funds (when he did not even own the club initially) when bampots sussed his very much on the radar financial credentials fairly rapidly. Did someone offer encouragement that was never really genuine.


  20. ecobhoy says:
    July 5, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    “I think Quayle Munro was engaged in preparing the feasibility study for the launch of the SPL TV channel and I believe the General Meeting of SPL Clubs on 31 October 2011 voted for them to continue the study…”
    ————————–
    An interesting scenario and one which has since been verified by Charlotte. Chapeau.

    Earlier in the day you were unsure who Quayle Munro were. I am intrigued as to how you travelled from this point of ignorance to the scripting of the above statement.


  21. Ecoboy – looks like it was in prior agreements – ALLEGEDLY

    http://www.sfmonitor.org/2013/06/the-spfl-the-case-for-revolution-evolution-and-a-case-of-the-hamilton-whackies/comment-page-57/

    ‘One of the conditions of this deal — as with all major sponsorships — is that Celtic and Rangers remain in the league. It is also a condition that they play each other four times a season. That’s been with us for the entirety of the current deal and before that with Setanta.’


  22. You have to take your hat off to old chuckles .
    Barely away and he is berating the peepil left in the lurch for overspending .
    Go one Chico we will all fall for it because you are telling us that
    Murray is running Sevco
    The same Murray you have supposed to have had a bust up with
    The same Murray you have wanted removed ,at least twice
    The same Murray that is still there
    The same Murray that had his reputation smeared .
    My oh my how you’re ever encompassing grip on Sevco must have faltered in the last 5 weeks .
    So what would you have done differently Chico ,cut costs ,made redundancies ,slashed player wages ,slash executive spending and bonus payments ,in other words downsized dramatically .
    Well I must have missed that during your BRIEF tenure at the helm and to think you lost everything with a less than PC comment about your best pal and business partner .
    Funny how that comment just seemed to come out of the blue ,just downright bad timing then Charles as you could still have been at the helm steadying the ship and not on the outside powerless to stop big bad Murray from all the overspending that is going to lose you millions on your penny shares .
    Oh look there’s a pig just flew over the pixies in my garden ,can’t hang about I need to send my letter to Santa before the rush


  23. jonnyod says:
    July 5, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    There was an interesting post today showing that ragers youth development LTD had been dissolved .
    This I believe was the company set up in 2003 when the cost of running Murky Park was becoming a problem for the old club .
    If I remember Murky Park was reported as costing in the region of £2m PA to run ,so the Mint passed the cost onto a consortium (stop laughing at the back) of businessmen (4 of them ) and the deal was they would brunt the cost of Murky Park and would get the money from the sale of any up and coming superstar from the conveyer belt .
    The interesting thing to me though is that the half time draw at Ibrokes has always stated it was for the youth ,in fact it is billed as the Rising Stars lotto .
    So if it is for the youth and rising stars then they don’t belong to Ragers ,so who gets the cash ,also if this deal is now null and void (due to the dissolved company ) will sevco be footing the £2m running cost bill next year .
    I must admit it has always been a deal that has bothered me and it seems it also bothered the RST back in 2003 also.
    ———————————————————————————————-

    I wonder if Ian Hart was one of the four businessmen? The reason I ask is the curious way in which he became a shareholder in Green’s original consortium. There was the initial pantomime when Green announced him as an investor only for Hart – who was a Blue Knight – to deny it.

    He later recanted and became a shareholder with Green publicly explaining that his shareholding came from money lying about in youth development. I think the sum was £400K and it always intrigued me because I wondered how CW had missed £400K and then D&P. I also wondered why Green wasn’t claiming it if it was in youth development at Rangers.

    But perhaps you’ve provided the explanation – so does that mean that £1.6 million came out of youth development (£400K x 4 businessmen) or was Hart the only one?

    A piece I did last year which touches on Hart’s shareholding:
    http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/who-are-the-mysterious-sevcorangers-investors-some-answers-guest-post-by-ecojon/


  25. Castofthousands says:
    July 5, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    Earlier in the day you were unsure who Quayle Munro were. I am intrigued as to how you travelled from this point of ignorance to the scripting of the above statement.
    ===============================================================

    If I tell you my secrets then you’ll get as many TDs as me 🙂

    However Slim Shady and others weighed in with bits of info that got my mind working.


  26. I am surprised people are still falling for the old canard that the TV companies had a clause inserted in the 2011 contract that there would be 4 games between Celtic and Rangers (as they were then) per season.

    No company could insist on the insertion of such a clause, no reputable firm of lawyers would consider inserting such a clause as to do so would undermine the very concept of sporting integrity, and, despite the hysteria at the time, not one iota of evidence was ever produced to back the ridiculous notion that such a clause might exist.


  27. slimshady61 says:
    July 5, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    It seems to be one of those things that has generally become accepted. Probably because it sounds plausible.

    I would be interested to see evidence of it.


  28. Exiled Celt says:
    July 5, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2064512/Scottish-Premier-League-agree-new-80m-TV-deal.html
    ===========================================

    I hear what Doncaster’s saying but is it true? I think in view of what we know about his way of working I would probably want to see the contract/s – terrible that we are at a stage where it’s impossible to believe what Football Authorities tell us even in very simple things.


  30. Robert Coyle says:
    July 5, 2013 at 4:22 pm

    “As yet i,ve been unable to find out who the shareholders are as they haven’t been declared.”
    ————————–
    Very interesting. I’ve been waiting for someone with a detailed knowledge to respond to you Robert (no slur intended ecobhoy). Perhaps I’ll find one as I read further.


  32. slimshady61 says:
    July 5, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    ——–

    Correct, they could not insert a clause that insists there are 4 games between two teams each year in a sporting competition, its an absurd suggestion.

    But there’d be nothing stopping them inserting clauses which impact on the value of the deal if there aren’t 4 games per season between what are perceived to be the big sellers, or even requiring a full negotiation when there are changes to the composition of the league.

    Commercially they’d be well within their rights to contract to pay less for something if it is seen to have lost value.


  33. COT
    If you were doing a deal to give a team in Scottish Football £18m against future ST sales would you ask yourself why ?
    1.Has the club you have dealt with before for short term funding now approached you for long term funding at the very time a buyout is about to be completed
    2. Is the buyer looking for you to provide funding to actually buy the club whilst looking at a possible club busting bill hitting the doormat from HMRC (widely known )
    3. STs repayments leading to sizable cost cutting needed that could adversely affect ST sales ,thus undermining the club as being in a position to pay ST cash back on schedule .
    IMO that is the first questions Ticketus should have been asking even before they made enquiries into CWs ability of actually financing Ragers going forward and past business record .
    With all this in mind I myself believe it very hard to accept so many peepil claim to have been duped ,in fact I would go as far to say the mere mention of ANYONE in this whole charade being duped is an insult to all our intelligence .
    We all know you will do what you want to do but do us all a favour , just get on with it and save yourself the money to Media House as your target audience have more than proved they will swallow your every word without so much as a probing enquiry .


  34. ecobhoy says:
    July 5, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    Castofthousands says:
    July 5, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    Earlier in the day you were unsure who Quayle Munro were. I am intrigued as to how you travelled from this point of ignorance to the scripting of the above statement.
    ===============================================================

    If I tell you my secrets then you’ll get as many TDs as me 🙂

    However Slim Shady and others weighed in with bits of info that got my mind working.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Impressive – how do you manage to do the research and post so often?


  35. Actonsheep says:
    July 5, 2013 at 8:15 pm

    slimshady61 says:
    July 5, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    ——–

    Correct, they could not insert a clause that insists there are 4 games between two teams each year in a sporting competition, its an absurd suggestion.

    But there’d be nothing stopping them inserting clauses which impact on the value of the deal if there aren’t 4 games per season between what are perceived to be the big sellers, or even requiring a full negotiation when there are changes to the composition of the league.

    Commercially they’d be well within their rights to contract to pay less for something if it is seen to have lost value.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Agreed – the 4 games is an SPL generated myth to cover the Boards tracks and push for oldco to stay in the SPL. The MSM played along, as usual.

    Sky would never have insisted on such a clause because they could never imagine a situation where there wouldn’t be 4 games.

    There is something likeable about a Murdoch enterprise getting stiffed – I know ethically it’s wrong to say that.


  36. ecobhoy
    I don’t know if IH was one of the original four but there seems to have been a few changes of directors in the companies history as well as late returns in 3 of the first 6 years
    CG said that Mather invested £1m of his own cash into Sevco and was involved with the youth set up and was lavish in his praise of what Mather would bring to the club ,funny how quickly things can change over Govan way


  37. If I was Sky I would also specifically include the 4 OF game clause if simply to ensure that other companies e.g.. ESPN didn’t get the chance to hijack them as their share. Of course that’s not the meaning as implied ND.


  38. Smugas says:
    July 5, 2013 at 9:09 pm
    If I was Sky I would also specifically include the 4 OF game clause if simply to ensure that other companies e.g.. ESPN didn’t get the chance to hijack them as their share. Of course that’s not the meaning as implied ND.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Not sure what you mean. These contracts don’t hang loose. Sky paid for certain games – ESPN bid for others and they get allocated. Am I missing something?


  39. Well been a while coming but BDO now being seen to follow the tapes.

    Also well done ECO for sticking with it.


  40. For those without TW, fun and games no doubt about to occur when the man with the fag packet micro recorder reveals all.

    From:

    James Stephen

    Date: 9 April 2013 13:02Subject: RFC 2012 PLC – In LiquidationTo: Craig Whyte Dear CraigThank you for attending the recent meeting at my London office. As agreed at the meeting, I am now writing to provide you with a list of further information and

    documentation that would assist the Joint Liquidators’ ongoing investigations.

    As discussed, I shouldbe grateful if you would review your emails and records and provide any document that you consider relevant to the information list (including copies of any of the recordings of conversations that youalluded to at our meeting). I appreciate that the list is quite broad so please do not hesitate to contactme should you wish to discuss any aspect of the information request.

    Duff & Phelps/MCR (“D&P”)

    – All advice received from D&P prior and subsequent to your acquisition of the club, in relation

    to the potential “pre

    –

    pack” insolvency transaction and th

    e general planning and advice for such anevent (both in relation to a potential CVA following administration and the sale of the business andassets).-

    Please provide evidence in respect of your contention that D&P had agreed a “fixed fee” for

    the administration of £500k.- Please confirm, from a review of your records, the identity of the individuals at D&P thatwere advising you and your corporate vehicles.- Any advice received from D&P in respect of the ability of the Ticketus agreement to survivean insolvency event.- Any documents showing that David Grier (or any of his colleagues) attended due diligencemeetings in the run-up to the acquisition- Please provide details of any engagement letter between D&P and Liberty, Wavetower or yourself, and details of any payments made to D&P arising out of these engagements (whether bythese parties or through the Club).- Any documents (including any recorded conversations to the extent that you are able to

    produce these) showing the extent of Paul Clark, David Whitehouse, David Grier and/or D&Ps’

    knowledge of the nature of the Ticketus transaction and the use of the Ticketus funds to provideacquisition funding for the transaction.

    –

    Any documents showing David Grier’s suggestion that he become finance director of the

    Club and any evidence in support of your contention that he was acting as shadow financedirector.-

    Any documents showing D&P’s unauthorised use without charge of the directors’

    box/hospitality packages at Ibrox (we will also ask Amanda Millar for any additional evidence assuggested by you).

    Ticketus

    –

    All documents that show the extent of Ticketus’ (or its lawyers) knowledge of the terms of the

    acquisition and the various representations provided by yourself and Gary Withey/Collyer Bristowin relation to the monies that were being introduced to fund the acquisition and working capitalfunding. You mentioned during our meeting that Ticketus/its lawyers would have been party to allemail chains containing the various versions of the transaction documentation, and that they hadat times proposed various amendments to such documents.- Please confirm, from a review of your records, whether there was any other individual atTicketus other than Ross Bryan that was involved in the negotiations.- Please provide any evidence in support of your contention that Ticketus had proposed a pre-packaged insolvency transaction immediately following your acquisition of the Club. Please alsoprovide any evidence that demonstrates that Ticketus was aware that a restructuring through aninsolvency process may have been required.

    Sevco

    –

    Any documents and evidence demonstrating that the introduction of Charles Green’s

    consortium to D&P was made by yourself

    HMRC

    – Any evidence that supports your contention that Murray and the Board of the Club werealways aware, throughout your negotiations, that you would attempt to negotiate a Time To Payarrangement with HMRC in respect of the Small Tax Case liability.- All documents evidencing the regular dialogue with HMRC following the acquisition. In

    particular, please provide the draft CVA document prepared by D&P on the company’s behalf

    proposing the settlement in full of creditors’ claims (other than the potential EBT liability) over a

    period of 18 months, and any correspondence from HMRC rejecting this.- And documents evidencing the agreement of HMRC to the non-payment of monthly payrolltaxes and VAT from October 2011, and the ongoing discussions that were taking place withHMRC generally during this period.

    Other

    –

    Any other documents that you consider may be relevant to the Joint Liquidators’

    investigations should be brought to our attention.Finally, you stated during our meeting that you had a connection to the Sevco consortium as at thetime of the Sevco acquisition in June 2012. Given this and the recent media attention given to thedispute between Charles Green and yourself, are you able to provide any further information inrespect of this point?Thank you for your continued assistance – I look forward to hearing from you at your earliestconvenience. Should you have any queries in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me.Kind regardsJB StephenJoint Liquidator

    JAMES STEPHEN

    Partner / Scotland Business Restructuring+44(0)1412495246 (DDI)+44(0)1412481653 (Fax) james.stephen@bdo.co.uk For and on behalf of BDO LLP4 Atlantic Quay70 York StreetGlasgow G2 8JXUNITED KINGDOM+44 (0)141 248 3761 http://www.bdo.co.uk Click here to view your national Business Restructuring contacts


  42. jonnyod says:
    July 5, 2013 at 9:09 pm

    ecobhoy
    I don’t know if IH was one of the original four but there seems to have been a few changes of directors in the companies history as well as late returns in 3 of the first 6 years
    CG said that Mather invested £1m of his own cash into Sevco and was involved with the youth set up and was lavish in his praise of what Mather would bring to the club ,funny how quickly things can change over Govan way.
    =====================================================
    I was never sure that BDO were going to look at this seriously but looking at that exchange they had with CW it looks to me that they have a grip on what the important areas are to probe. I’ll use the email address provided courtesy of CF to raise the youth development money issue as it’s something that has always niggled at me.

    The Mather money was reported as a joint investment with his business partner in their packaging company and I’ve never really understood how he could walk away from that to do the Rangers CEO job full time. Perhaps with Stockbridge apparently taking a voluntary wage cut then Mather might be wondering whether it’s worth taking the Rangers CEO job full time.

    I always assumed Mather was here because he and Green shared a love of the gee-gees and that was the connection. He also has his sports agency business so I thought Green probably thought he would bring him in and make money from flogging the Murray Park ‘product’. Word on the street is that after Green made him director of youth development at Murray Park he was never really seen there – but who knows as there are lots of agendas in operation.

    Mather interests me and I have done a few posts on him:

    http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/craig-mather-froths-over-rangers-job-guest-post-by-ecojon/

    http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/rangers-blow-whistle-on-the-sfa-by-ecojon/

    http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/rangers-little-broxi-bear-and-big-shot-brian-souter-by-ecojon/

    http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/the-sfa-and-its-role-in-any-future-sale-of-rangers-murray-park-by-ecojon/

    http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/the-rangers-bubble-expands-as-more-hot-air-is-produced-new-investor-details-guest-post-by-ecojon/


  44. Drew Peacock 9.39

    Think of it like a first refusal. If there is a fourth OF tie on the off chance that both finish in the top six we would like to screen it. Thanks. Love Sky.

    Thats not the same thing as there must be 4 of ties (or 3, or 2 or 1) for that matter.


  45. ianagain says:
    July 5, 2013 at 10:11 pm

    Well been a while coming but BDO now being seen to follow the tapes.
    Also well done ECO for sticking with it.
    ======================================================

    I think at some stage the SMSM will have to start covering the story as day by day they are becoming a bigger laughing stock and irrelevant – it’s the biggest story in Scotland and they aren’t carrying a word on it.


  46. Drew Peacock says:
    July 5, 2013 at 8:56 pm
    ecobhoy says:
    July 5, 2013 at 7:51 pm
    Castofthousands says:
    July 5, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    Earlier in the day you were unsure who Quayle Munro were. I am intrigued as to how you travelled from this point of ignorance to the scripting of the above statement.
    ===============================================================
    If I tell you my secrets then you’ll get as many TDs as me 🙂
    However Slim Shady and others weighed in with bits of info that got my mind working.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Impressive – how do you manage to do the research and post so often?
    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    My elves are hard workers and I pay them above the minimum rate and their fringe benefits are fantastic 🙂


  47. Eco

    Believe the BDO questions are disposed in favour of CWs ” I was duped too case”. I wonder if he will respond or just point to CF?
    From his point of view and considering what’s coming down the line in October court case this may be a godsend for his lawyers.
    Somewhere there will be a tape proving me right.


  48. Actonsheep says:
    July 5, 2013 at 8:15 pm
    slimshady61 says:
    July 5, 2013 at 7:51 pm
    ——–
    Correct, they could not insert a clause that insists there are 4 games between two teams each year in a sporting competition, its an absurd suggestion.
    ==============================================================
    I actually don’t see it as absurd at all if they feared an increased league size which would result in only 2 Old Firm games a year – if I were Sky I would want to ensure that any League expansion wouldn’t happen during the currency of the contract.

    Sky ain’t interested in sport but in making money!


  49. ianagain says:
    July 5, 2013 at 10:43 pm
    1 0 Rate This

    Eco

    Believe the BDO questions are disposed in favour of CWs ” I was duped too case”. I wonder if he will respond or just point to CF?
    From his point of view and considering what’s coming down the line in October court case this may be a godsend for his lawyers.
    Somewhere there will be a tape proving me right.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Well he won’t be able to respond unless they send it to his current email address. Charlotte has control of libertycapital.biz


  50. Scott
    Ha ha true never clocked that very forensic of them.
    However I’m sure Craigy has multiple copies of the tapes at least. You don’t get to be Scotland’s most famous spy without a backup.

    I’m actually quite encouraged that at last some organisation has started querying:
    Murrays involvement.
    Ticketus knowledge
    D&P and Grier


  51. I’m getting ahead of myself here but should BDO get proof via CW that the intro and the outro as it were were both scams courtesy of the bank/Murray and Green/Imran what then?
    What are their powers if any?


  52. Sam says:
    July 5, 2013 at 10:54 am
    ‘..I’m continually surprised folks do not issue Information Requests to SFA as an Authority / Organisation….’
    ——
    Your post prompted me to look up the The Freeodom of Information Act ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2002/13/section/11) for the definition of ‘public authority.’.

    As far as I can make out ( and I am not a lawyer, of course) the Act would not apply to the SFA- which is not listed in the relevant Schedule as a ‘public authority’.

    It appears that merely receiving some monies from the public purse isn’t enough to bring a body within scope of the Act.

    Sportscotland ( formerly the Scottish Sports Council) is, however, a ‘public body’ , and I have fired off an email, as below:

    “” Dear Sportscotland,

    I understand that Sportscotland is a public authority as defined in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, as amended.

    I would like to ask , under the provisions of that Act, the following questions:

    -are the relatively substantial grants made to the Scottish Football Association ( ‘SFA’) by the Scottish Government made without any investigation or enquiry into how that organsisation functions in terms of adherence to its own Articles of Association?

    – in the event that the Board of the SFA were shown to have acted beyond its powers under the Articles of Association, would grants be discontinued and the Board called to account?

    Yours enquiringly,
    John Clarke


  53. Castofthousands says:
    July 5, 2013 at 8:03 pm
    Robert Coyle says:
    July 5, 2013 at 4:22 pm

    “As yet i,ve been unable to find out who the shareholders are as they haven’t been declared.”
    ————————–
    Very interesting. I’ve been waiting for someone with a detailed knowledge to respond to you Robert (no slur intended ecobhoy). Perhaps I’ll find one as I read further.
    ===========================================================
    And none taken. I have answered quite a few posts of Robert’s because he seems to have an inquiring mind which is always to be encouraged in my book.

    I’ve done some work on this but the difficulties are always that we don’t AFAIK fully understand the difference between the original consortium investors and how they may or may not have been converted to shareholders – firstly of TRFCL and then of RIFC Plc.

    So we have to await the overdue Companies House return of the annual report of TRFCL.

    So the detailed knowledge isn’t there but info can be found in the Rangers AIM info and elsewhere. I have listed some starting points below but as many of the shareholders IDs are shielded behind offshore companies, investment vehicles, blind trusts, secret forward sales and arrangements; and things I don’t even know about then I doubt if the info to be derived is worth the effort.

    It was worth researching in the early days but I don’t think it is now as many of the early punters may well have gone and others now ‘own’ their shareholding or will do when lock-ins come off.

    However I have done some background which can be found at:

    http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/the-rangers-shareholder-list/

    http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/the-many-mysteries-of-the-rangers-fc-shareholding-by-ecojon/

    http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/the-bbc-has-one-of-the-richest-news-gathering-organisations-in-the-world-and-i-have-ecojon/

    http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/who-are-the-mysterious-sevcorangers-investors-some-answers-guest-post-by-ecojon/


  54. ecobhoy says:
    July 5, 2013 at 10:39 pm
    ‘..My elves are hard workers and I pay them above the minimum rate and their fringe benefits are fantastic :)’
    ——-
    £6.19+ an hour, and non-repayable, non-taxable loans? That’ll never work! 🙂


  55. Eco/Robert

    Akin to Ticketus we will never know.

    Pretetendygers fans should care but don’t. SFA/SPFL should but don’t.

    The only link I could find to this whole who owns what business was to find my mum getting dividend from St James one of the inputs to Ticketus. She tells me its well down year on year.
    Wonder why.

    There you go my mums a Sevco proxy shareholder.


  56. ianagain says:
    July 5, 2013 at 10:43 pm
    3 0 Rate This

    Eco

    Believe the BDO questions are disposed in favour of CWs ” I was duped too case”. I wonder if he will respond or just point to CF?
    From his point of view and considering what’s coming down the line in October court case this may be a godsend for his lawyers.
    Somewhere there will be a tape proving me right.

    ——————–
    The BDO questions are asking him for evidence on the answers he gave in his meeting with them.


  57. ulyanova says:

    July 6, 2013 at 12:04 am

    0

    0

    Rate This

    Quantcast

    ianagain says:
    July 5, 2013 at 10:43 pm
    3 0 Rate This

    Eco

    Believe the BDO questions are disposed in favour of CWs ” I was duped too case”. I wonder if he will respond or just point to CF?
    From his point of view and considering what’s coming down the line in October court case this may be a godsend for his lawyers.
    Somewhere there will be a tape proving me right.

    ——————–
    The BDO questions are asking him for evidence on the answers he gave in his meeting with them.
    ===========================

    True

    And the answers could be very damning not to him because of their selectivity.


  58. And he did not provide many answers as I see the transcript. They await them.


  59. Apart from this I must say:

    Finally, you stated during our meeting that you had a connection to the Sevco consortium as at thetime of the Sevco acquisition in June 2012. Given this and the recent media attention given to thedispute between Charles Green and yourself, are you able to provide any further information inrespect of this point?


  60. ecobhoy says:
    July 5, 2013 at 10:27 pm
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    You are so much better when you get off the old club/new club stuff.

    Keep it up.


  61. john clarke says:
    July 5, 2013 at 11:17 pm
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    If the SFA get public money they are accountable to parliament. Are the parliamentarians asking questions?


  62. Drew Peacock says:

    July 6, 2013 at 12:21 am

    1

    0

    Rate This

    Quantcast

    john clarke says:
    July 5, 2013 at 11:17 pm
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    If the SFA get public money they are accountable to parliament. Are the parliamentarians asking questions?
    ———————————–

    Drew

    You chust know they are. However its always wrong ones.


  63. ianagain says:
    July 6, 2013 at 12:13 am

    Apart from this I must say:

    Finally, you stated during our meeting that you had a connection to the Sevco consortium as at thetime of the Sevco acquisition in June 2012. Given this and the recent media attention given to thedispute between Charles Green and yourself, are you able to provide any further information inrespect of this point?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The Craigster isn’t going to be drawn into the realms of normal business practice, No siree Bob he will have his day in Court.


  65. ianagain says:
    July 6, 2013 at 12:25 am

    Drew Peacock says:

    July 6, 2013 at 12:21 am

    1

    0

    Rate This

    Quantcast

    john clarke says:
    July 5, 2013 at 11:17 pm
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    If the SFA get public money they are accountable to parliament. Are the parliamentarians asking questions?
    ———————————–

    Drew

    You chust know they are. However its always wrong ones.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I would badger mine a bit more but he’s a bit weary from my blasts about him not being a proper Labour geezer. So unless I change my name (again) I don’t think I’ve got much pull with Mad Mick McMonagle-O’Casey


  66. Some more dissolving going on.

    RANGERS MATCHDAY SERVICES LIMITED
    Status: Dissolved 10/05/2013

    RANGERS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
    Status: Dissolved 10/05/2013

    THE RANGERS SHOP LIMITED
    Status: Dissolved 10/05/2013

    RANGERS.CO.UK LIMITED
    Status: Dissolved 15/03/2013
    ————————————————–
    ecobhoy says:
    July 5, 2013 at 11:21 pm

    And none taken. I have answered quite a few posts of Robert’s because he seems to have an inquiring mind which is always to be encouraged in my book.

    Knowledge is power,so they say.I also agree in regards the different company websites that get used for info gathering,this one http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC425159/THE-RANGERS-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED saying that TRFC has no share capital and its risk score has been amended on the 6th june but offers no info as to why.


  67. ecobhoy says:
    July 5, 2013 at 10:31 pm
    —
    ‘…it’s the biggest story in Scotland and they aren’t carrying a word on it…’
    ——-
    It is an extraordinary phenomenon!

    Never in the field of journalism has so little effort been expended by so many gutless journos to establish some kind of factual truth!

    And certainly not since Nazi Germany has there been such a willingness on the part of the media to stay schtum !

    The evil Ruperts of the world are to be found here in spades, in this little country of ours.!

    Ready to lie with all their might, ready to twist, distort, fabricate, make maliciously- intended ‘connections’ (‘ football manager lives in the same street as drug dealer!’)

    But even more ready, and aye ready, to ignore the mounting evidence that there was a huge conspiracy by a parcel of rogues to ruin a world infamous football club; and lie, cheat, and steal themselves into small fortunes, at the expense of hundreds and thousands of people, INCLUDING they themselves!

    Oh,Irony of ironies!

    To destroy one’s own credibility and integrity by defending, by complicit silence, the parcel of rogues ( it is alleged) who have destroyed one’s icon!

    Who among us now has any regard for our football journos, ANY of them?

    And, I would add, who among us now would trust a word spoken by the CEO of the SPFL or the the CEO of the SFA?

    The journos and the officials inhabit an Orwellian world, where concepts such as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, ‘truth’ and falsehood’ have no meaning.

    They have chosen to live in that world.

    And now they are beyond redemption.

    Every single one of them.


  68. John Clarke

    I like you’re email to Sport Scotland.
    I’d like to think if will start a process but sadly think they will try to patronize you and avoid answering your real questions
    But it is a long game we play

    Did you copy it to the health and sports ministers and their shadows in other parties?


  69. Spanishcelt says:
    July 5, 2013 at 3:02 pm

    Good luck with that brother. And I mean that sincerely.
    I gave my season book money to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign so I too appreciate a long shot.
    However, while the people at PSC and myself share the same goals I do not think you can claim to say the same about yourself and the Celtic Board.


  70. john clarke says:
    July 6, 2013 at 1:01 am
    ===============================================================

    John, ‘Parcel of rogues’ is a great term for the SMSM. The term might even apply to the whole cabal and their closing of ranks.

    And to think they used to mock the Celtic view by laughing and calling it ‘Pravda!’


  71. john clarke
    The smsm are more akin to space invaders,remember the comic characters of years ago the Numbskulls ,big dome heads with lots of things going on in there but each one not knowing what was in the others imagination,well it was the same same nonsense in each domehead mind ,so there you go ,the next time you see any journo just imagine whats going on inside his dome


  72. This blog gets better and better. For those of us on the sidelines the past 24 hours have thrown up some very insightful posts, particularly those fueled by the CF docs. And bravo @ecobhoy for re-focusing your considerable analytical talent (not to mention time and energy) away from the old club/new club debate and onto other issues. Btw, I’ve often wondered what elves did for the remaining 11 months of the year 🙂


  73. Someone mentioned what a liquidator might be able to do.

    Worth reminding ourselves of to things.

    What Malcolm Cohen, the man HMRC put in to deal with this, specialises in

    =================================
    Malcolm leads the firms’ Contentious Insolvency Team, this team is dedicated to recovering assets through litigation, cross border investigations and uncovering fraud..
    =================================

    And HMRC’s statement with regard to the liquidation

    ==================================
    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.
    ==================================

    I know I have both of these things loads of time, but they seem particularly important with the very recent developments.

    As I have said for quite some time, the liquidators in this case were not put in simply to sell of the remaining assets, get the bets return and pay of what little they could to the creditors. This was more about the potential for a, investigating what happened at the various stages and who was responsible b, looking at the actions of individuals with a view to potential criminal or civil action and c, seeking to establish if there were other assets available which may increase the return available to creditors.

    Further information on liquidators in Scotland can be found here.

    http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gpo8s.shtml


  74. oops – “two thing” obviously.

    Oh for an edit function.


  75. On Rangers Men taking the club over, a topic we have discussed recently and even the concept that may have been part of a medium term strategy. For pantomime villains to “clear the debt” with Rangers men coming back in once it is done.

    Interestingly someone on follow follow has asked if people would be willing to put money into a further share issue once the team was back in the SPL “…in order to get us started and make a serious challenge in first season back…”

    A pattern emerges where people would so long as it was the legendary Rangers Men, with the good of the club at heart, and not some spivs out to make a profit. Others are saying that they would but only through the RST.

    It would appear that part of the plan at least was predictable, though maybe next time they will be more realistic about how much is talk and how much is an actual intention to hand over money.

Comments are closed.