The Vice Closes

Avatar By

HomunculusSeptember 20, 2017 at 22:09    ALLYJAMBOSEPTEMBER 20, 2017 at 21:34===========================For me …

Comment on The Vice Closes by Allyjambo.

HomunculusSeptember 20, 2017 at 22:09   
ALLYJAMBOSEPTEMBER 20, 2017 at 21:34===========================For me that works.However in my opinion it is even simpler.The SFA tell Rangers, get these documents from HMRC. Then show them to us.If you fail to do that then we will infer you have issues with regards your social taxes and deny your application.
________________________

I agree that’s how it should be, but I, personally, and I know it’s with hindsight, wouldn’t trust Craig Whyte to provide the genuine article (despite his not guilty verdict – doesn’t make him an honest man), nor would I trust either Rangers!

But really, my point was that, in these circumstances, the ball is in the SFA’s court, and they can demand any club, once they know HMRC are/have been investigating/chasing them, to provide whatever documentary evidence they want., or that club doesn’t get what that club wants.
_______________________________

AuldheidSeptember 20, 2017 at 22:42   
Ally JamboThe rules at Annex IX I posted tell you what the SFA have to do to obtain PROOF no overdure payable to HMRC existed.The question is  did they?That’s one for the Comp Off to look into.
________________________

My post was more or less a case of belt and braces, Auldheid, pointing out that there is/was really no impediment to gaining documentary proof of Rangers’ tax affairs, regardless of what rules are in place, or whatever caveats might exist to allow the SFA an excuse not to take action. All that was required was for the SFA to be acting in upmost good faith towards the other member clubs.

To me, this would be a killer point/question (there will be a few others) for any truly independent inquiry to make, that would show, at the very least, that the SFA were incompetent, and probably wilfully so. It should also draw into question the idea that the SFA rely on their member clubs to act with that ‘upmost good faith’ when completing documents like the Euro licence application once they have knowledge of an HMRC (or any other government body) investigation of that club’s business affairs. Not because such an investigation would show the possibility of a lack of ‘good faith’ (though it might) within the boardroom of that club, just a case of good old ‘belt and braces’.

Of course, any incompetence becomes undoubtedly wilful once we bring in the question of what action did the SFA take once the Sheriff Officers arrived at Ibrox? If they couldn’t work out that they’d been lied to at that point…

Allyjambo Also Commented

The Vice Closes
HIRSUTEPURSUITOCTOBER 7, 2017 at 21:50

A very fine post, HP, and I am sure you are correct, except that his investigation will be carried out under the parameters set by the SFA/Stuart Regan. I think that is enough to say that he will find nothing to take to a court of law! LNS revisited, except it’s not, and, unless independent action is taken, it never will be!


The Vice Closes
JIMBOOCTOBER 3, 2017 at 21:27

Very sad to hear of Tom Petty dying.  Scroll past if you don’t like but some talent in this song:

______________

Thanks for that, Jimbo, hard to believe only Bob Dylan and Jeff Lynn left of that true supergroup. Gods of music, one and all.

But as George Harrison wrote, so many many years ago, ‘All Things Must Pass, All Things Must Pass Away.’

What a truly sad week this has been.


The Vice Closes
EASYJAMBOSEPTEMBER 28, 2017 at 22:49  
John Clark September 28, 2017 at 22:13Perhaps BDO are alleging that the Administrators ought to have made more of an effort before they awarded CG ‘exclusivity’?=====================That’s the bit that I don’t get.  Why was CG the only person who was allowed to purchase the assets of the oldco as a newco.  Was that option ever available to other prospective buyers?
I get the low sale value of the assets, particularly as the assets were only of use to a football club, and that the newco had no licence to play football on 14 June 2012.  I’m sure that Lord Bannatyne commented to that effect at one of the preliminary hearings when he described it as a sale of distressed assets, when the Advocate Depute was unable to provide an alternative figure that would represent a market value for the asset sale.
The assets only had a real value once a licence was obtained.  That was reflected in the “fair value” of assets and the “negative goodwill” figures posted in the RIFC accounts in 2013.“The negative goodwill release of £20.5 million is a credit to the income statement based on a calculation showing the fair value of net assets acquired of £27.2 million and a consideration of £6.7 million.” 
However, if the administrators had been given assurances from the SFA beforehand, that a licence would be available to the newco, then clearly the asset sale should have raised a lot more than it did.
_________________

It would be nice to think that somewhere in the deliberations over what might be deemed to be “fair value” a definition is given of what Charles Green actually bought, for surely the value of the assets increases quite considerably if they included a football club with a huge support (and a huge captive income) togeher with a record number of trophies. 

What a delicious Catch 22 situation that would be, to have to decide if it was a fair valuation of distressed assets, or the cost of purchasing a ‘football club’ with a massive support. Imagine trying to defend that position, whereby you might get away scot free by stating you, as administrators, only sold the distressed assets of a liquidating football club, and that the idea that you sold a ‘football club’ came solely from the purchaser after the sale desperate to instantly enhance the assets’ value! But you, the administrators, definitely did not sell a ‘football club’.

This must be another court case for the SMSM to ignore.


Recent Comments by Allyjambo

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Big PinkJanuary 2, 2018 at 13:54 
AJI suspect the TDs are not from SFM folk (remember the ratings are available to all manner of trolls). It is a disgusting world-view if made in earnest. A shocking way to score a point if not.
_________________-

I didn’t, for a moment, suspect they were from anyone who posts here, even the more prolific troll posters are better than that, I am sure. 

For some time now I have had the feeling that there is someone, or some people, coming on here and just TDing a number of posts without bothering to read their content, either out of malice or as some sort of concerted effort on behalf of people with reason to dislike our message. It really is quite strange how, suddenly, a number of posts receive one, two or occasionally three thumbs down in very short order, and often posts like uth’s, that could offend no one, receive these petty TDs as a result. 

I can honestly say that I have never read anything from our regular, or occasional, posters that might suggest they would TD anything relating to that terrible day. I include, of course, all supporters of Celtic and RFC/TRFC who have, over the years, made their arguments on SFM. My experience of Celtic supporters talking of that day is one that leaves me certain in the knowledge that only the basest of their support (and we all have them) were not badly effected by the disaster and in full sympathy with the deceased, their families and the wider Rangers support. 

I can still remember that night, sitting in the Queens Arms in Edinburgh, watching the death count rising on the TV, waiting for one of our mates we knew was at the game, getting more and more nervous until he appeared. It had a lasting effect on me.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
upthehoopsJanuary 2, 2018 at 08:52 29 2
Rate This
On this day in 1971, the Ibrox disaster happened during a Rangers v Celtic game at Ibrox. 66 fans died in a crush. Some of us remember that day, some of us may even have been there, while some of us would not even be on this earth at the time. We are all football fans. Nobody should go to a football match and never return home. Rest in Peace.
_____________

Wow! I know we are not meant to put much store on the thumbs up or down, but two people have given thumbs down to this post! Who on earth could find fault with a post respecting the dead from the Ibrox disaster?

It kind of confirms my belief that there are people coming onto this site who don’t read the posts, but are assigned with the task of creating the appearance that there is some disagreement with posts that mostly criticise Rangers(IL) and TRFC and hit the TD button without thought.

Alternatively, of course, it could just be that others, like myself, have difficulty hitting the correct symbol on tablets or mobile phones, I certainly hope that is the case here.

Thanks to Upthehoops for reminding us of that sad day, something we should do every year as a mark of respect for those who died on Scottish football’s worst day.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_______________________

DBD, though I used your above post to highlight the impossibility of separating club from company, I have to agree, to some extent, with the thrust of the post. While I am not sure that by declaring himself bankrupt that King could escape the wrath of the TOP and CoS, he isn’t going to do anything for the benefit of your club if it doesn’t benefit him, or save him, at the same time.

That said, however, King’s ‘ownership’ of the NOAL Trust was established in court to the judge’s satisfaction, and I doubt that he would get away with making further loans to RIFC plc through it or any other hidden avenue, once declared bankrupt. Indeed, despite my limited knowledge of bankruptcy laws, I am certain that King (or anyone else) can’t just announce bankruptcy and clear themselves of all fiscal responsibilities, they have to prove they have no money to meet their debts, and as far as we know, King doesn’t have any – and if he had, the court would make sure the funds in his NOAL Trust would be used to meet them, as far as possible, with, I am sure, an investigation into what other (disguised)investments he holds. One thing’s for sure, he would not be allowed to ‘lend’ any money to RIFC/TRFC, and, if he does, indeed, have substantial debts, his creditors might well force the return of his existing RIFC loans to meet his debts.

One thing’s for sure, the law will not allow someone to avoid the consequences of breaking the laws and regulations of the land by availing one’s self of the laws of bankruptcy! While a little tax cheating scrote like Barry Ferguson might get away with transferring his assets to his wife, just prior to receiving his tax bill, King and his money are already on the court’s radar and I doubt that even his Masonic connections would be enough to let him get away with further fraudulent behaviour.

Something I am sure of, and has to be considered before wondering if bankruptcy is a way out for both/either King or RIFC, and that is – you have to have debts that you demonstrably can’t meet before you can petition for bankruptcy. Unless King has very substantial debts, that outweigh, at least, the funds held in the NOAL Trust, then he has no grounds to declare himself bankrupt.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_________________

Hi, DBD, and a Happy New Year to you.

While your recent posts have been pretty good, showing a realistic approach to what’s happening at your club, might I ask how it could be that the chairman of RIFC’s selfishness, and I presume you include his dishonesty in that, could lead to your club’s downfall, if, as you’ve previously claimed, the club is separate from the company? Surely, in your belief structure, it would only be the company, TRFC Ltd, that would ‘fall down’, and the club would just sit around, responsible for none of the inherent financial chicanery of the ‘overspend our way to success’ ethos that permeates at Ibrox, until some new ‘football company’ is set up to carry the can again!

I know it’s a bit early in the year to reintroduce the OC/NC debate, but I am wondering if you’ve, perhaps, come to realise that the idea that a football club can, for some skewed reason, escape the consequences of it’s own greed, is pretty ludicrous?


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
ODDJOBJANUARY 1, 2018 at 13:42
Allyjambo,Thanks.I also suspect that the assignation of ” ra deeds” would provoke an angry response in some quarters
___________

And I suspect that the assignation of ‘ra deeds’, should it ever come to pass, might well be the last throw of the dice! What’s more, once any assets are used as security, it reduces the amount the current lenders are likely to get in the event of liquidation. It may well be that the directors, who are now refusing to give more loans, have, rather than reached the end of their free funds, decided that the lending has reached a level greater than, or close to, the total value of the group’s assets.

It’s one thing lending without security when in a position to ensure there is enough in the pot to, more or less, cover the amount of the loans, it’s an altogether different thing once someone else gets that security!

Whatever the accounts give as a value for the fixed and current assets, the directors will all have a very good idea of the realisable value of those assets (particularly the heritable asset value), and should total creditors begin to outstrip that value, they may well begin to wonder if it’s time to call in the administrators. Granting security over some of the heritable assets would only hasten the moment for unpleasant decisions.

If PMGB is correct in saying King is looking out for loans secured on the club’s heritable assets, then I am certain that the rest of the directors would carry out proper due diligence on the potential lenders before granting any security. Not that they have any dodgy characters in their midst, or anything, just that they are canny businessmen.


About the author

Avatar