Many years ago, I read an article in some legal magazine or other which, to my mind, pointed out something that I had always presumed was obvious.
Namely, that unlike his English Counterpart, the Scottish solicitor is not just a drafter and processor of legal documents, he ( or she ) is a man of business who furnishes advice, and as often as not, will recommend a course of action – possibly involving many different steps or procedures- in any given situation.
Without going into an academic analysis of what this means, may I suggest that a simple definition is that the Scottish solicitor does not always simply do what they are told but will furnish the client with advice for, or against, a certain course of action.
The same applies to accountants and other professionals in my experience. When discussing any business situation, the client should always be aware of the pros and the cons. From there he or she makes a decision based on the advice given – which advice may be taken or rejected.
That is how things work.
If you think about what I have said above, then it follows that one of the principal things an adviser should do for any client, is to suggest a course of action that keeps the client out of court.
Court is a place of last resort. Litigation of any kind is expensive, brings uncertainty, is time consuming and acts as a barrier to unfettered and uninterrupted business planning, strategy and progress because no one can ever be sure of the outcome or the consequences of a court case.
In olden days, court meant choosing your champion to fight against your adversary’s champion. If your guy knocked the other guy of the horse and killed him outright with the lance then you won. It didn’t matter if your guy was also hit with your opponents lance and died a week later as a result – you were still the winner because the other guy died first.
Eventually, society did away with such courts and replaced them with courts of law and the men and women with wigs and gowns as opposed to the lance.
However, you can still win a court battle and suffer a fatal defeat as a consequence.
That is why a court of law should always be regarded as a place of last resort. No one should ever set out on a course of action which runs a high risk of ending up being disputed in court.
Sometimes, of course, a court action is inevitable. On other occasions, people adopt a course of action where the risk of things ending up in court is seen an as an acceptable risk.
This morning’s Daily Record ( and indeed yesterday’s edition ) is spouting David Murray’s mantra that HMRC knifed Rangers but adds there are no winners here. How very MSM. How very lacking in business understanding or searching for the truth.
So, let me explain something.
When you sit down with a firm of accountants who specialise in aggressive tax avoidance schemes such as an EBT scheme or a DOS scheme, one of the things that are spelt out to you is that the scheme you are about to embark upon may well be, indeed is likely to be, challenged in a court of law. Especially if you do not administer it to the letter.
Often as not, the client will be asked to sign up to a contract which specifies that the client will pay hefty fees to lawyers and accountants for setting up the scheme and that fee will include a contribution towards legal fees arising in the event of a legal challenge to the scheme.
That is stipulated at the very outset. You pay £x in advance because you know you are likely to be sued. You also get the benefit of advice which is designed to ensure that your scheme is absolutely watertight in terms of the law, but crucially, there is a rider which states that in the event that the court rules against you then the accountants or lawyers will not be held accountable as you are entering into the whole process knowing that there is a big risk of litigation – and you are told in writing that while you shouldn’t lose, you might lose.
This too is the way it works.
The business advisers will not want litigation, but from the outset they will cover their backs and make it plain to the client that if you sign on the dotted line for an aggressive tax avoidance scheme then you can expect HMRC to take you to court.
Accordingly, the protestations screaming out from the Daily Record this morning about how HMRC killed Rangers are balderdash and bunkum of the highest order.
HMRC did not knife Rangers, they did exactly what was expected of them in the circumstances and the people at MIH knew that the day they started off on any one of their tax avoidance schemes.
Taking the risk in the first place killed Rangers or Rangers PLC if you prefer.
However, the events of yesterday and the day before throw up some other matters worth considering and remembering.
The first is the woeful state of the Rangers accounts by 2005 when there had been yet another share issue underwritten by David Murray. Those accounts showed Rangers PLC to be in a shocking financial state, despite all the rhetoric and dressing from the Directors and the Accountants.
More or less immediately Murray chose to put the club up for sale as it was obvious that the financial traincrash could simply not continue.
However, despite years of searching no buyer could be found.
Further, it should also be remembered that Rangers PLC knew all about the small tax case long before Craig Whyte came along. Those liabilities stemmed from around 2001 but at no time during the Murray era at Ibrox did Sir David put aside the money to pay a bill which no one at Rangers disputed as being due at any time.
Whyte stressed the need for this to be paid long before he ever got the keys to the Marble Staircase, but it wasn’t and there can be only one of two reasons for that.
Either Sir David just didn’t pay the bill concerned ….. or he couldn’t!
The fact is that long before Craig Whyte appeared David Murray could have paid that bill or reached an agreement to pay that bill. However he didn’t and for a period of several years he simply decided he wanted out …. Needed out ….. at any cost!
There is no doubt that he gambled hard and fast with Rangers Football Club, and their finances and their supporters loyalties. He knew , or ought to have known, well in advance that a prolonged and regularly used aggressive tax avoidance scheme, legal or not, was bound to attract the adverse interest and attention of HMRC.
Sir David Murray has been lauded up and down the country for his so called business acumen and business knowledge. He was knighted for the same and received all sorts of unprecedented backing from banks and other institutions.
Does anyone reading this really believe that such a man did not have the foresight, or the advisers around him who had the foresight, to see and know that a large and prolonged dispute with the revenue authorities may well have an adverse effect on the viability and sellability of his business?
Such a suggestion is simply not credible.
Further when the HMRC interest came, Murray’s men, if not Murray himself, did their very best to try and hide the existence of the scheme, the documents surrounding the scheme, the details of the scheme and the intention of the scheme.
They hid all this away from HMRC, The SFA, The SPL and anyone else in authority, with the result that those authorities and bodies had no option but to run to the courts, set up tribunals and convene formal hearings.
When someone does not tell you the truth, starts hiding documents and obfuscating that is the way it works.
However, that is not all that yesterday brought.
The news that Collier Bristow have apparently agreed ( through their insurers no doubt ) to pay the liquidator of Rangers some £20M shows that taking into account the litigation risk, someone somewhere thought it worth making a payment to make a bad situation go away.
Imagine that? What bad situation could that be?
Would it be that somehow or other, creditors, officials and all sorts of other people were misled by a leading firm of solicitors in relation to the affairs of Rangers PLC? Could it really be the case that things were so bad financially at Ibrox, that the only way for even Whyte to be able to get the sale to go through at the princely sum of £1 plus the official bank debt was to have his people mislead funders and eventual creditors?
What does that say about David Murray’s stewardship and the absolute urgent need to get Lloyds TSB out of the picture? Was there really no one else or no other way to take on the debts of Rangers PLC? Apparently not — and that can only be because someone chose to gamble with the finances of the club and leave it in a precarious state.
I am told that when Lloyds took over that account they expressed amazement at how MIH and Rangers PLC were allowed to run up the debts they had with HBOS. Apparently there was incredulity at some of the figures and covenants.
So , when we read in the Record this morning that the HMRC Big Tax case inadvertently brought down Rangers it is very easy to overlook the debt due to the bank, how it arose, the sums due to the same bank through MIH, the extent of the sums due, the banks attitude and the possible attitude and course of action had Whyte not taken them away.
Remember that the same bank stepped straight into MIH and began selling off its assets, and that low and behold the same management team who engineered the EBT scheme have openly admitted that there is an unexplained shortfall in the employees’ pension scheme of over £20 Million.
Do you think the employees who have lost out on pension provision are the slightest concerned about whether the tax avoidance scheme funds and their use are legal or not ? – or do you think they might argue that the money used for these so called “discretionary payments” should have been used to fund a proper legally constituted pension scheme which the company and its directors undertook to pay into under contract?
There is still substantial debt due to Lloyds by MIH and part of that debt is the amount by which David Murray and MIH underwrote and guaranteed that last share issue of Rangers PLC in 2004/2005. The principal sum due under that guarantee ( excluding interest and charges ) was greater than the principal sum claimed by HMRC in the big tax case.
Go figure.
However, this saga is far from over especially with regard to “contractually due” severance payments which look as if they will come back to the FTT in the event of the parties concerned not reaching agreement on the tax allegedly due.
Now, this is interesting because apparently there are a number of documents in existence which show that certain players received a payment of £x at the end of their contract as part of a severance deal.
At the time these were made, my recollection is that under normal severance agreement legislation the first £30,000 would be tax free but after that any sums were taxable.
The FTT has never been asked to rule on these payments, and has never heard any evidence about the legality or otherwise of paying these sums gross of tax into an offshore trust. All of that may yet be to come.
However, the most interesting part of this for me is that further court action may be taken in relation to these matters failing agreement between HMRC… and whom?
Rangers PLC ( the employer ) is in Liquidation so perhaps HMRC might claim some of the money from the Liquidator who has just received the £20M from Collier Bristow – then again it could well be that Ticketus have something to say about that.
In his last statement about MIH, David Murray openly proclaimed that the company was all but finished and revealed the pension shortfall and so on – so I doubt if any agreement of any meaning will be reached there.
That then leaves those who supposedly benefited from the contractually due severance payments – namely the players.
Maybe, in the absence of a now defunct employer, they will be asked to cough up the tax.
No doubt they will all go and consult their lawyers and accountants – the men and woman of business – who will give them their best advice – but you can bet your bottom dollar that any such advice will include a paragraph or ten which starts something along the lines of “ However, here is the potential risk in the event of you deciding to …………. “
That is the way it works……. And always has done.
On the VB’s stuff.
CF kindly furnished us with the side letter re the 5WA that the SPL would take no further action against RFC (I forget which version). I remember at the time that it was not wholly naïve to believe that there may have been a counter agreement back the other way?
Has the 5way agreement ever been subject to scrutiny vis-a-vis the Competition Act of 1998?
Perhaps the VB initiative is no bad thing. If they get publicity (and thus far they have not been ignored in the MSM as Charlotte and TSFM were when these documents first came into existence – itself evidence of MSM pandering)it may force the authorities to publish everything in defence of their position.
I think though that the MSM will beat a hasty retreat from a place where they will force the issue. Pandering only takes you so far ….
That article on the BBC website about who will provide competition for Celtic makes interesting reading, especially this passage:
Excellent, good that you’ve made the disctinction that it was the comapany who went into administration and not the club. Well done. Everyone knows how careful you need to be about stuff like that these days. People get a bit touchy when you don’t draw the obvious distinction between club and company.
Hmmm? What’s that you say? The article about Rangers share issue falling short on the same website?
Once again, I’m confused. Also, kudos for the cavalier approach of beginning a sentence with ‘And’, Chris Mclaughlin. Some people would think ‘What hope for getting the facts right if a journalist, someone who’s paid to write, can’t even keep his grammar together’, but not me. I admire that Maverick touch…
I think it would be naive in the extreme to expect the MSM to print anything more than ‘selected highlights’ of what the documents say, rather like Jingle-Jangles last dabble with the CF stuff.
Marcy boy, how will I feel. Beaten by a better team IF it happens. It’s sport; an entertainment; a passion for some of us but that’s it. The Dons have no given right to be “big” or “successful” (whatever that is. I’m as active with the Dons and other fitba as I’ve ever been, so are my sos/in law and my grandson. Deid? I dinna think so.
I wish Aberdeen well tonight, and hope that the team will be in the draw tomorrow. Much has been said about who will chase celtic in the league this season, here and elsewhere. We seem to have forgotten that Motherwell had a tremendous last season and were confirmed as runners up with a win at Pittodrie on the last day of the season.
I am sure the ·Well will be close again this year, with the Tayside clubs not far away.
Good luck to all.
And my question to you is;
How did this come to pass?
How did this one club fall so far and fast?
Again?
(with apologies to Suzanne Vega)
The job of a good administrator is to plan for the unexpected and the unlikely events that are only remotely possible but potentially very problematic. So some of the points on the SFA’s and SPFL’s recent flip chart must include:
1. If a club can’t play its fixtures, can it retain its membership and licence
2. How are points rearranged in the incomplete league
3. How are clubs that played the defunct club compensated for events that can’t be reversed – injuries, cards etc
4. How are other clubs compensated for lost revenue
5. How are ST holders compensated for lost matches
6. How are sponsorship and TV deals compensated for lost matches
7. How will promotion/relegation work to fill the empty place.
8. How will we decide which club will be admitted to the SPFL
9. If the club reforms where does it fit into the league system
10. How do we pretend no-one could see this coming
11. Who can we blame outwith our control and jurisdiction
12. What do we tell the MSM to tell the mugs
13. Is Jack Irvine still on a retainer
That’s quite a lot to think about. In CO, SR and ND we trust.
I have always wondered and previously posted on why the SPL desperately needed to have Sevco swear an oath of silence on the 5-way Agreement.
It can’t have been to keep the mechanics and demands of the 5-way Agreement confidential as they are clearly spelt out in the Rangers AIM Prospectus of Oct/Nov 2012 and various press releases.
So why was the secret side-letter deal required between Rangers and the SPL – which demanded an Omerta-like vow of silence – to prevent details being released?
Obviously there was nothing secret in the above but then there was this para:
Now what in Heaven’s Name is all that about? That’s where the real ‘smoking gun’ lies IMO.
What did CG and Rangers have on the conduct of directors and officers of the SFA, SPL and SFL. It was that serious that it looked as though civil or criminal action was being contemplated by Rangers’ officers and directors.
Is this why stripping of titles disappeared from the SFA/SPL agenda – a quid pro quo to buy silence from Rangers and prevent legal action? Is this why the LNS process had to be corrupted in so many ways? It seems obvious that in no way could evidence be put before LNS that might lead to title-stripping.
The deal over that was done long before he began his inquiry. But we are still left in the dark over what leverage Rangers officers and directors had over ‘SFA, SPL and SFL and their directors and officers from all claims connected with their conduct’.
What an unbelievable story for a Journo to get their teeth into and expose. Will it ever happen? Don’t make me laugh 🙄
Strangely enough if the Bears actually get any kind of traction through their ‘usual methods’ then the SFA and SPFL might be forced to come clean and I wonder – if that happens – who will be left smelling of roses? It might not be Rangers.
Eco,
As I said earlier, it always struck me as a “you watch my back and I’ll watch yours” type of situation. I could always understand it from CG’s point of view. This was a shrewd experienced insolvency operator being asked to pay oldco’s debts. Why should he, unless he got the future indemnity re titles back the other way (which then allowed him to play to the floor with impunity). But I never understood what it was the SFA/SPL so had to fear particularly as regards “their conduct.” It was bizarre in that, in insuring against something, you more or less confirm that something exists? And why does it suddenly all seem a bit Kaiser Sauzee?
Dignitas
All the recent financial talk around Ibrox is about keeping the lights on. If Wallace and Nash manage to keep RIFC/TRFC intact until they reach the SPL they will have performed many miracles.
However, that still leaves the miracle-proof problem that the whole show is owned by a rabble of squabbling spivs who can’t agree how best to suck the soul out of it.
Maybe it would be a mercy if Wallace and Nash withdrew their energetic interventions and allowed nature to take its course, letting the patient pass, retaining what dignity remains. The alternative is a long-running reality show that even Channel Five would consider beyond bad taste.
Marcybhoy says:
August 7, 2014 at 9:18 am
Marcybhoy says:
August 7, 2014 at 10:36 am
—–
Yes, Marcybhoy, I am glad your second post recognises the need to ‘keep up the good work’.
A very, very evil deed was done by the Football Authorities. A deed which struck at the very essence of sport.
This blog is all about getting that dirty deed fully exposed, and the guilty men behind it hiked out of office , publicly disgraced and the whole Hampden byre mucked out.
There can be no ‘forgetting and forgiving’ until that is done.
And what you describe as ‘obsession’ with the new club and its doings is no more than the expression of the deeply-rooted suspicion that if ( some might say ‘when’) that economic basket case implodes, further dirty deeds will again be done to ‘save’ it, at any and all costs to Integrity.
We are determined that the Football Authorities should not be allowed to ‘move on’ and mask the festering wounds they inflicted on the body of Scottish Football.They must be made to acknowledge those wounds, apply appropriate treatment and ,as far as may be possible, restore sporting justice and decency by amending the public record. They must strip falsely ‘won titles and honours from RFC(IL), AND deny the claim of the new club to the many fairly and honourably won titles and honours of RFC of old.
Unless and until those things are done, Scottish Football will remain mired in the muck of falsehood and dishonour, encouraged to wallow there by SMSM lickspittles- of whom there are many.
In my opinion.
ecobhoy says:
August 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Good to have you back
Allyjambo says:
August 7, 2014 at 11:50 am
“…makes it clear there was much basis to PMGB’s recent writing…”
Indeed.
It is now, finally, in the mainstream that RIFC/TRFC are in urgent need of external finance.
They currently do not have the finds to operate for the season that has just started.
Afternoon all.
Last week RIFC issued a statement that,although it seemed important,was nothing more than an update on the amount of shares issued.No information wrt possible existing options or anything else that could affect the potential share issue in the future was included.It was a nothing statement and I speculated,maybe wrongly,that maybe it was issued to buy time,or keep someone like AIM off their back.
Yesterday we had another,In my opinion,nothing statement,telling us only that RIFC are considering a share issue.So what!
It looks to me that this statement is all about buying time,trying to look as if things are moving ahead when in reality it’s all hands to the pumps.Around £3-3.5m nett will do nothing to alleviate the current losses and the RIFC board know it.They felt they had to look proactive though so that’s why they decided to release this.
I’d also speculate,if I may that the €5m threshhold has been deliberately chosen because a prospectus would have to contain all sorts of financial and other information that the RIFC board would rather keep hidden.
As an aside,the targetted ST sales figure given to Deloittes was 39k with an average price increase of around 20% binging in around £10.15m.Actual sales figures,now generally reported is around 20k,raising circa £5.2m,a shortfall of £5m or so.This potential share issue doesn’t even cover the loss of income from proposed ST sales,never mind address the continuing month on month losses.
I’m no accountant but I don’t see how this can continue long term and I’d find it hard to believe that Deloittes could sign RIFC off as a going concern(but I’m sure they’ll find a way)!.
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
August 7, 2014 at 2:36 pm
5 1 Rate This
Allyjambo says:
August 7, 2014 at 11:50 am
“…makes it clear there was much basis to PMGB’s recent writing…”
Indeed.
It is now, finally, in the mainstream that RIFC/TRFC are in urgent need of external finance.
They currently do not have the finds to operate for the season that has just started.
———
And a team in the most competitive league in the world, too.
Makes me wonder why Wallace and Nash can be bothered and don’t find pastures new. Have they staked their their professional reputation on making this work?
CoT, For your database (and I think it is a great idea) there are loads of places to get a certain amount of historical data. There may not, though, be everything we would want or need. Extracting the data is the issue I usually find. I use a bit of software called WebTable which extracts data from sites as tables and makes it a bit easier but it generally still needs parsed to make sense of it. I’ve linked to a few data sites I use below but I’ve added spaces as I know that too many links will result in the post spending time in internet jail.
http: // www . soccerpunter.com/soccer-statistics/Scotland
http: // www . statto.com/
http: // stats . football365.com/
http: // www . soccerstats.com/latest.asp?league=scotland
http://www.football-data.co.uk/
The last one is great for getting all the matches from each league in one go and the amount of data is huge (including referees). You can take the data as a CSV (http://www.football-data.co.uk/mmz4281/1314/SC0.csv Change the SC0 to SC1,2 or 3 for the other leagues and the 1314 to the years you want, 1213 etc). I can give you a rundown of what each column is if need be. The timings etc are another thing but some of the others are quite good for that. It’s a mammoth task though. Maybe it can be done online in a collaborative way? Get a few people working on it.
VAT will now be due on any monies they have collected so that will be a tidy sum. Now how are they going to pay it if Deloittes won;t let them access the money. On top of that they have to pay off (or rollover) the £1.5m they borrowed earlier in the year. It’s all getting a bit sticky now
ecobhoy says:
August 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm
‘…What did CG and Rangers have on the conduct of directors and officers of the SFA, SPL and SFL…’
——-
Welcome back, ecobhoy, and doubly welcome for introducing a new (to me, anyway) slant on the possible cards held by CG in his ‘negotiations’ with the ‘authorities’.
I had thought only in terms of the authorities being principally concerned at the possibility of financial Armageddon ( as well as being emotionally partisan) if they had dealt properly with the liquidated RFC and had not tried to maintain the fiction that the new creation was the old beast for some purposes but not for others.
That was crime enough.
It is a very intriguing thought that CG might have had material which he threatened to expose unless he was accommodated, material of, say, actual financial corruption or of previous instances of RFC exerting undue,covert influence to get their own beknighted way.
As others have remarked about the whole sorry saga, nothing can be ruled out.
But, of course, all will come out in the end.
Smugas says:
August 7, 2014 at 1:55 pm
I think it’s as simple as Charles Green had evidence that one, or more, of those in charge at Hampden had full knowledge of Murray’s deceit with regards to the deliberate mis-registration of player contracts, or even provided assistance of to cover up his misdeeds. It’s probably information passed from Murray, to Whyte, to Green.
Whatever it is, it has to be something very serious for them to include disclaimers that so obviously point, by their very existence, to something extremely sinister. Clearly the ball was in the SFA/SPL/SFL court and yet Green acted all along as though he could force the authorities to do whatever he wanted. He got away with so much at a time he, and his company, needed the goodwill of those he was attacking just to survive.
I wonder, too, if the knowledge Green has could harm TRFC also; a knowledge that makes the shedding of onerous contracts rather difficult, perhaps.
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
August 7, 2014 at 2:36 pm
They currently do not have the funds to operate for the season that has just started……
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If they continue to act like big time Charlies, pay top dollar salaries, operate Murray Park, Ibrox etc etc.
However with at least 2Ok season tickets at say £300 a pop and £4m quid coming in (maybe) they have more cash than most Scottish clubs need to see out a season.
Any word on how the austerity measures are going because, as discussed previously, we know running the first team alone is in the region of £6-7Mm and historical operating costs for the rest have been circa £14m. Therefore lets call it a minimum £20m as a round figure for arguments sake.
Probably time for someone to redo the spreadsheet on what is coming in and what is going out.
Still think Wallace and Nash will be hoping it is a tight run thing with a big reliance on the number of pay as you go sales.
Allyjambo says:
August 7, 2014 at 3:27 pm
1 0 Rate This
Smugas says:
August 7, 2014 at 1:55 pm
I think it’s as simple as Charles Green had evidence that one, or more, of those in charge at Hampden had full knowledge of Murray’s deceit with regards to the deliberate mis-registration of player contracts, or even provided assistance of to cover up his misdeeds. It’s probably information passed from Murray, to Whyte, to Green.
———
In the interests of balance, could it not be that the SFA simply did not want more court cases because of the UEFA / FIFA bother it would cause? Also, if Charles was all bluster and threats, the authorities would be looking at a very hefty legal bill I take it.
Just trying to find a less conspiratorial explanation. The paragraph in question could have a quite mundane reason for being there. Or am I being naive?
scottc says:
August 7, 2014 at 3:20 pm
1 0 Rate This
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 7, 2014 at 2:38 pm
As an aside,the targetted ST sales figure given to Deloittes was 39k with an average price increase of around 20% binging in around £10.15m.Actual sales figures,now generally reported is around 20k,raising circa £5.2m,a shortfall of £5m or so.This potential share issue doesn’t even cover the loss of income from proposed ST sales,never mind address the continuing month on month losses.
I’m no accountant but I don’t see how this can continue long term and I’d find it hard to believe that Deloittes could sign RIFC off as a going concern(but I’m sure they’ll find a way)!.
VAT will now be due on any monies they have collected so that will be a tidy sum. Now how are they going to pay it if Deloittes won;t let them access the money. On top of that they have to pay off (or rollover) the £1.5m they borrowed earlier in the year. It’s all getting a bit sticky now
=============================
Just a wee technical question if I may,
Deloittes can remind the RIFC board of their duty but can they physically stop them using the ST cash which must be in the boards possession?.
Shirley Deloittes will let them touch the season book money to pay the VAT due to HMRC for that income?
tykebhoy says:
August 7, 2014 at 3:50 pm
0 0 Rate This
I would think so tykebhoy, but once they ‘allow’ access for one thing they can’t really turn round and make things difficult for other things. Oh, and torrejohnbhoy, I agree that Deloittes can’t really stop them using the money but they can make things difficult regarding the accounts that they are working on right now
Green Vs SFA/SPFL/SPL
I’ve always viewed the great and good administrators as bumbling, complacent, incompetent yet arrogant and over impressed with their own abilities. They probably took Charles as a buffoon or a fellow conspirator and revealed far too much to him – believing they had the upper hand – probably all recorded by Charles. Likewise, I’m sure many Rangers men who know too much were indiscreet when trying to impress or ingratiate. Little did they imagine that Old Big Hands would become their worst nightmare. Charles probably has a vast collection of information that would sink the lot of them if he chose. It became obvious that they feared him and he enjoyed it.
I would agree with Danish on this one. Given the propensity of certain parties to litigate/threaten litigation if things didn’t go their way, if I had been drafting the 5 Way agreement, I would have put in such a clause. Remember that this was in effect a settlement agreement among the parties. When you settle a dispute you want to close it off and not leave anything hanging about that one side can use at a later date.
tykebhoy says:
August 7, 2014 at 3:50 pm
0 0 Rate This
VAT will now be due on any monies they have collected so that will be a tidy sum. Now how are they going to pay it if Deloittes won;t let them access the money.
Shirley Deloittes will let them touch the season book money to pay the VAT due to HMRC for that income?
==========================
Is the money still there?.
No one has explained how,after taking out loans to help them through April/May,how they managed to find the approx £2.7m per month to see them through June and July.That’s why I’m asking if Deloittes can physically stop them using the ST cash.
I know it’s wrong but it’s happened before!.
I believe the Sons of Struth and other such groups are right to be concerned.
The announcement is entitled POSSIBLE Equity Share Issue and contains the ominous phrase “Discussions are ongoing and there can be no certainty of the outcome of these discussions”.
Therefore it is a ‘Possible’ Equity Share because they don’t really need the money or is it a ‘Possible’ Equity Share because they are not sure if they can secure an underwriter?
If all was well then, given the last few years of profligacy, you wouldn’t be asking for more money to pee up against the wall, would you? Surely running a tight ship should be the order of the day.
If money is required and there was no problem sorting out the deal then why mention the lack of certainty.
The announcement hardly inspires confidence.
Johnny Nash is on the juke box again.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 7, 2014 at 4:09 pm
0 0 Rate This
=================
Could at least some of the money have come from GCC hire of Ibrox for the CWG Rugby 7s. Yes Deloittes couldn’t stop the SB money being touched but if they issued a hands off warning that was ignoredand Deloitees know it was ignored then how will Deloittes sign off the accounts with a “going concern” status
OldAlly, NewAlly
At last NewAlly it being judged publicly and confidently as a football manager by the bears – not as OldAlly the hero, the saviour, the deity. Can NewAlly avoid personal liquidation before the clumpany hits administration ? Of course NewAlly can be liquidated without damaging the history, titles and glory of OldAlly.
http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk/2014/08/ally-mccoist-man-under-pressure.html
Talking of Administration
I wonder if any mischievous MSM sleuths have asked Graham Wallace recently to repeat his “There will be no administration” promise.
I can’t hear that without remembering Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” – yeah right Bill, yeah right Graham.
No administration because they’ll go straight to (members’ voluntary) liquidation?
Purely speculation but I have a feeling TRFC are getting close to the point where the board (Wallace and Nash) say, ‘we’ve done our best to rescue our subsidiary, TRFC Ltd, as a going concern, but we inherited an impossible task. It is in the best interest of the shareholders of RIFC plc that we call in the administrators!’
At this point they could search out a purchaser for the club, while they still hold the money from STs. They could, in theory, sell the club for a genuine consideration of, say, the total cash held in respect of STs, which would be honoured by the new owners who would then have to finance the season with their own money plus walk up income. The administration would offload the overpaid deadwood and, if they do it now, perhaps leave enough of the transfer window for the new owners to sign some decent, relatively cheap, players to make a decent fist of chasing promotion after the points deduction, whatever that might be.
The problem would be that RIFC would obviously end up with Ibrox and MP, and, now divorced from TRFC, want a healthy return by way of rent. Perhaps, if by acting now, they do receive a decent payment for the club, they might well be inclined to offer a rent free first year giving the new owners a chance to carry out the much needed rebuilding of the company.
The bears aren’t going to like it, but holding on is just going to use up more of the much needed cash and make the club a less viable proposition. Unless the board have irrevocable agreements in place to purchase the £5m euros worth of shares, they can’t be certain they are going to raise even this much, and besides, a company that looks for/needs £8-10m just to make it through the next year isn’t going to get far with £3.9m.
Of course, as many have alluded to, the unknown shareholders, who have such a huge hold on RIFC, may well block any plans for administration, but at some point, a massive loss making company just can’t carry on making these massive losses.
In short, at some point, saving RIFC, or at least maximising it’s value, has to become more important to Wallace and Nash than saving TRFC. If it’s not already.
tykebhoy says:
August 7, 2014 at 4:26 pm
0 0 Rate This
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 7, 2014 at 4:09 pm
0 0 Rate This
=================
Could at least some of the money have come from GCC hire of Ibrox for the CWG Rugby 7s. Yes Deloittes couldn’t stop the SB money being touched but if they issued a hands off warning that was ignoredand Deloitees know it was ignored then how will Deloittes sign off the accounts with a “going concern” status
=;’=======================
They may have had no option.It was use the ST cash or die.Desperate times and all that.They may have seen the Deloittes issue as something happening in the future whilst they had to deal with the here and now.
All conjecture,of course.
Here you go:
From Richard Wilson on Twitter.
HMRC will seek leave to appeal UTT decision in favour of Murray Group
Allyjambo says:
August 7, 2014 at 4:45 pm
Purely speculation but I have a feeling TRFC are getting close to the point where the board (Wallace and Nash) say, ‘we’ve done our best to rescue our subsidiary,
==============================
Well put – but it leaves the big question – who will buy TRFC with all its problems and spivs as landlords? Remember Bill Miller’s man said something to the effect of “This is not a turn around opportunity. This is a chance for a rich fan to spend tens of millions on a club he loves.”
P.S. If PMG is correct, Wallace has been humiliating himself in the City begging for funds – so he will be able to say honestly that he tried his utmost before wielding the axe – either mega austerity, admin or some other wheeze. But first he must get the spivs to stop squabbling and agree to a plan – which appears to be his bigger problem.
ecobhoy says:
August 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm
‘…What did CG and Rangers have on the conduct of directors and officers of the SFA, SPL and SFL…’
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Welcome Back ecpbhoy
Heres a thought that might help answer your question
What If
RFC were aware of what transpired regarding EBTs when CO joined the SFA?
Like
What If
The greatest Administrator in Scottish Football had been cute enough to secure a written letter of comfort before accepting the post of SFA President.
Something along the lines of his ongoing EBT and side letter not being a barrier to his appointment and therefore ok to be ignored by the SFA Salaries Dept?
This could have been made out to be a moderate and sensible request if CO could also point to previous assurances given to him by named individuals in the SFA to turn a blind eye to side letters being excluded from registration documents for RFC players despite insisting on them for other clubs
mcfc says:
August 7, 2014 at 5:03 pm
0 0 Rate This
Allyjambo says:
August 7, 2014 at 4:45 pm
Purely speculation but I have a feeling TRFC are getting close to the point where the board (Wallace and Nash) say, ‘we’ve done our best to rescue our subsidiary,
==============================
Well put – but it leaves the big question – who will buy TRFC with all its problems and spivs as landlords? Remember Bill Miller’s man said something to the effect of “This is not a turn around opportunity. This is a chance for a rich fan to spend tens of millions on a club he loves.”
P.S. If PMG is correct, Wallace has been humiliating himself in the City begging for funds – so he will be able to say honestly that he tried his utmost before wielding the axe – either mega austerity, admin or some other wheeze. But first he must get the spivs to agree – which appears to be his bigger problem.
============================
Is Sandy Easdale not on record as stating TRFC would not survive another administration?.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 7, 2014 at 4:59 pm
HMRC will seek leave to appeal UTT decision in favour of Murray Group
=====================================
But they were found innocent of everything and HMRC should be in the dock.
Allyjambo says:
August 7, 2014 at 3:27 pm
I think it’s as simple as Charles Green had evidence that one, or more, of those in charge at Hampden had full knowledge of Murray’s deceit with regards to the deliberate mis-registration of player contracts, or even provided assistance of to cover up his misdeeds. It’s probably information passed from Murray, to Whyte, to Green.
Whatever it is, it has to be something very serious for them to include disclaimers that so obviously point, by their very existence, to something extremely sinister. Clearly the ball was in the SFA/SPL/SFL court and yet Green acted all along as though he could force the authorities to do whatever he wanted. He got away with so much at a time he, and his company, needed the goodwill of those he was attacking just to survive.
I wonder, too, if the knowledge Green has could harm TRFC also; a knowledge that makes the shedding of onerous contracts rather difficult, perhaps.
____________________________________________________________
Not wishing to rain on this particular stream of thought, but isn’t it possible that this is nothing more than a belt and braces approach by SFA/SPL lawyers to something that had a high likelihood of being referred to m’learned friends some ways down the line?
Any legal types care to comment?
Campbellsmoney?
GoosyGoosy says:
August 7, 2014 at 5:12 pm
0 0 Rate This
ecobhoy says:
August 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm
‘…What did CG and Rangers have on the conduct of directors and officers of the SFA, SPL and SFL…’
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Welcome Back ecpbhoy
Heres a thought that might help answer your question
What If
RFC were aware of what transpired regarding EBTs when CO joined the SFA?
Like
What If
The greatest Administrator in Scottish Football had been cute enough to secure a written letter of comfort before accepting the post of SFA President.
Something along the lines of his ongoing EBT and side letter not being a barrier to his appointment and therefore ok to be ignored by the SFA Salaries Dept?
This could have been made out to be a moderate and sensible request if CO could also point to previous assurances given to him by named individuals in the SFA to turn a blind eye to side letters being excluded from registration documents for RFC players despite insisting on them for other clubs
=================================
We know CW informed the SFA/SPL that RFC were bust.When CW withheld the Taxes due and carried on did this leave the authorities open to a charge of abetting a member club to trade whilst insolvent?.
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/285509-hmrc-confirms-it-will-appeal-oldco-rangers-big-tax-case-ruling/
TSFM says:
August 7, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Not wishing to rain on this particular stream of thought, but isn’t it possible that this is nothing more than a belt and braces approach by SFA/SPL lawyers to something that had a high likelihood of being referred to m’learned friends some ways down the line?
===============================
Then why not just put it in the 5WA? Why hide it in another layer of intrigue – and probably from other parties of the 5WA?
Apologies playing catch up
Mcfc 10.13
Maybe ally doesn’t speak ill of the dead
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 7, 2014 at 5:47 pm
HMRC decision to appeal.
—-
Good spot, tjb. We will see if Lord Doherty is sure enough of his decision to feel able to refuse permission to appeal, and make HMRC have to go over his head.
If permission is granted (one way or another) will we see Lord Hodge re-appearing? Would we want to? 😐
mcfc says:
August 7, 2014 at 5:03 pm
P.S. If PMG is correct, Wallace has been humiliating himself in the City begging for funds – so he will be able to say honestly that he tried his utmost before wielding the axe – either mega austerity, admin or some other wheeze. But first he must get the spivs to stop squabbling and agree to a plan – which appears to be his bigger problem.
————————————————————————————-
My information is very solid.
However I won’t speculate on any ulterior motive from Mr Wallace.
RIFC requires external finance and they have very limited options when it comes to raising those monies.
mcfc says:
August 7, 2014 at 5:51 pm
TSFM says:
August 7, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Not wishing to rain on this particular stream of thought, but isn’t it possible that this is nothing more than a belt and braces approach by SFA/SPL lawyers to something that had a high likelihood of being referred to m’learned friends some ways down the line?
===============================
Then why not just put it in the 5WA? Why hide it in another layer of intrigue – and probably from other parties of the 5WA?
=============================================
The hiding it from the other parties of the 5-way agreement I don’t think stands-up as all the parties are mentioned in the SPL secrecy side-letter and then again they are identified in the Rangers AIM Prospectus which further specifically states the issue referred to the ‘conduct’ of directors and officials of those other parties.
And again I don’t really accept it was a ‘belts and braces’ response from SFA, SPL and SFL. It was Rangers agreeing to withdraw what can only be legal action – whether civil or criminal – because of the ‘conduct’ of officials and directors of the footballing bodies.
They had to get something in return and when it was delivered they dropped the threat. I am totally guessing but I find it hard to see beyond title-stripping especially when you see what happened at LNS. If the DOS scheme details had emerged then there would have been ineligible players fielded and that would have caused a number of titles to be stripped.
And, of course, we have the Bryson interlude of comedy madness.
One thing is clear IMO and that’s if the rule books had been followed then there could be no successful charge concerning ‘conduct’. But as the rules were being ‘bent’ in favour of Rangers I don’t think it’s a rules issue.
It has to be down to ‘conduct’ which for me is something more serious than disagreements about the rules and how they should be applied.
There’s a helluva lot of people who must know what this is all about. We have a number of Rangers directors and officers plus directors and officials from the 3 footballing authorities as was. And that means that a number of other football clubs must be aware of this at some level or wasn’t it reported back to them?
HMRC to appeal UTT decision
Does this mean that the remission back to the FTT of Termination Payments etc will be held back until this appeal is heard?
HMRC to appeal – on STV News
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 7, 2014 at 4:51 pm
0 0 Rate This
tykebhoy says:
August 7, 2014 at 4:26 pm
0 0 Rate This
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 7, 2014 at 4:09 pm
0 0 Rate This
=================
Could at least some of the money have come from GCC hire of Ibrox for the CWG Rugby 7s. Yes Deloittes couldn’t stop the SB money being touched but if they issued a hands off warning that was ignoredand Deloitees know it was ignored then how will Deloittes sign off the accounts with a “going concern” status
=;’=======================
They may have had no option.It was use the ST cash or die.Desperate times and all that.They may have seen the Deloittes issue as something happening in the future whilst they had to deal with the here and now.
All conjecture,of course.
*********************************************************
Of course there is always the opinion of not paying your taxes.
That appeared to go well in the past 🙂
As discussed the other day this is all a lot of fun but only guys like Wallace and Nash know what the spreadsheets are saying.
As Allyjambo says they also have a duty to RIFC shareholder and, as reputable business men, they may at some point have to take a key decision on the Plc and its subsidiaries.
Many have hoped for the demise of the club from Govan but I still feel there may be a long way to go.
A first / second administration/liquidation close to the start of the season would leave them nowhere to go.
My guess is that time is still in the distance and that they will manage to squeeze some money out of folks just now then try again later in the year with a final ‘this is it or we die for sure’ plea to the fans and anyone else who will listen.
The aim is getting back to the premiership and to do that ‘Every Little Helps’
gherrybhoy57 says:
August 7, 2014 at 6:11 pm
HMRC to appeal UTT decision
Does this mean that the remission back to the FTT of Termination Payments etc will be held back until this appeal is heard?
============================================
Probably depends on the grounds of Appeal which I think might be on points of law only. So I suppose the remit-back could still proceed but who knows?
A first / second administration/liquidation close to the start of the season would leave them nowhere to go.
My guess is that time is still in the distance and that they will manage to squeeze some money out of folks just now then try again later in the year with a final ‘this is it or we die for sure’ plea to the fans and anyone else who will listen.
The aim is getting back to the premiership and to do that ‘Every Little Helps’
============================
A possible 25pt penalty for going into administration would probably wipe out any chance of TRFC reaching the premiership,no matter when it was served.
Good evening,
Article by Danielle Harris of Fresh Fields Waterhouse Entitled Raising money by false pretences.
Posted article as didn’t have the link
“The High Court has recently ordered a company director to pay damages to an investor. The investor had relied on a private placement memorandum issued by the company, which failed to disclose that it intended to use the investment monies to discharge historic liabilities to the directors. The case is Gilbert v Holms.
Background
Dr Holms, together with a colleague, set up a company called Medezrin Limited to exploit a new drug they were developing. In late 2004, the company wanted to raise new funds by way of a private placement. To that end, the directors issued a private placement memorandum, drafted principally by Dr Holms, giving information about the company to potential investors.
The memorandum contained a statement in the usual form that the directors had taken all reasonable care to ensure that the facts stated in it were true and accurate in all material respects and that there were no material facts, the omission of which would make any statement in the memorandum misleading. Dr Holms accepted that he had assumed a duty of care to the recipients of the memorandum in relation to the accuracy of the facts stated in it and any material omissions.
Mrs Gilbert was one of the new investors, subscribing £200,000 for shares in the company in early 2005. Unfortunately, the company was not successful and its shares became worthless. Mrs Gilbert brought a claim for damages against Dr Holms, alleging that she had made her investment in reliance on misrepresentations he had made.
The High Court decision
The court found that there was a misrepresentation in the private placement memorandum. This was the statement that there were no material omissions from it.
The memorandum stated that the new money invested in the company would be used for clinical trials and associated manufacturing, registration and similar costs. It mentioned “general administrative and travel expenses”, but implied that these would not be a main expense. Overall, the memorandum indicated to a reasonable investor that liability for reimbursement of historic costs to the company’s directors (for which the new money might be used) did not significantly exceed £15,000.
In fact, the outstanding liabilities of the company to its directors at the date of the memorandum were approximately £70,000, and by the time of Mrs Gilbert’s investment they amounted to £125,000 in total. This difference was material to Mrs Gilbert, as she might have been the only investor – investments pursuant to the private placing were not conditional on subscriptions being received for the full amount that the company hoped to raise. Therefore, any individual investment might have been applied wholly, or in large part, towards the reimbursement of historic liabilities and not the development of the new drug.
The court therefore found that material facts were omitted from the private placement memorandum which rendered misleading the statements it did contain about the use of the placement proceeds. Further, the increase in historic liabilities between the date of the memorandum and the date of Mrs Gilbert’s investment was relevant, because the representation as to material omissions continued throughout the period until closure of the placement.
The court rejected Mrs Gilbert’s allegation that this misrepresentation had been made fraudulently, but concluded it had been made negligently, without exercising reasonable care. The court also accepted that Mrs Gilbert had relied on the misrepresentation, and would not have invested if the full scale of the historic liabilities had been disclosed.
Dr Holms was ordered to pay Mrs Gilbert £200,000 in damages, equivalent to the amount she had invested in the company.
Points to note
Directors seeking to raise new investment for their company must take care to disclose all material information to the potential new investors. Although there was no finding of dishonesty in this case and at the time of the private placement there was no reason to believe the company would fail, Dr Holms had simply failed to ensure that the true financial position of the company was disclosed. As a result, he had to pay damages to Mrs Gilbert out of his own pocket, in addition to losing his own investment in his company.”
Anyone know of anyone who has raised money by failing to tell the truth?
A thought occurs regarding the notorious “onerous contracts’ that are reputed to be dragging Rangers closer to an insolvency event.
what if
Rangers stopped paying these contracts. What effect would this have ?
Well, on a positive note it might enable them to stretch out the cash flow for a little longer.
However what it would do is create a creditor who may be significant in the event of an insolvency . Now I don’t know the nature of these contracts, but reports suggest they are not necessarily going to be broken by an insolvency.
Just for the sake of musing out loud, if there was significant value in these and you added in a few loan notes secured against key assets, then you may very well be in a position to control any CVA.
A lot cheaper than investing in a whole lot of new equity !
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 7, 2014 at 6:24 pm
You raise an interesting point re administration.
As has been discussed before and highlighted by Phil Mac’s belief of the existence of a ten day in and out plan back in January, the time to dump the debt was last season when promotion was in the bag.
The performance against Hibs this week shows that that Championship is not going to be a cakewalk.
Therefore the admin and a points deduction, even 15, may be enough to keep them in the lower divisions for another year. Therefore no Premiership and no Euro football etc etc
The time for admin was when Wallace concluded his review and had the chance to publicly say he had inherited a poisoned chalice but was the man to sort things out.
Therefore either he is very sure of his figures for keeping the show on the road this season and meeting his objective of promotion or he is not as smart as folks would have us believe.
Alternatively he is either fighting to achieve shareholder consensus or is being controlled by shareholders to do their bidding despite what good business sense says. If that is the case then even with a 100% bonus why stay and do damage to your reputation?
I know I never put myself forward as a footie expert per se, but I don’t think that the TRFC/Hearts/Hibs matches will be decisive in securing promotion.
That will most probably come down to depth of squad given that the current first XIs are pretty much of the same strength.
One of the main reasons why finance is such a crucial factor. Beating the lesser teams in that division consistently takes manpower, and may be more important than the Glasgow-Edinburgh-Edinburgh encounters.
An escape route for Celtic?
Robert T. Błaszczak @RobertBlaszczak 5m
Legia have just released a statement that there is a possibility that an ineligible player was fielded against Celtic last night. #UCL
Robert T. Błaszczak @RobertBlaszczak 4m
It could still be a matter of interpretation but things don’t look bright for Legia as we speak. UEFA have confirmed an investigation.
Robert T. Błaszczak @RobertBlaszczak 3m
Legia’s right-back Bereszyński was red-carded last season but wasn’t registered vs St Patrick’s to serve his suspension.
A revised 3-0 scoreline would put Celtic through on away goals.
From the Legia website (Google translation)
http://legia.com/news,42936-komunikat_legii_warszawa.html
Club announces that in connection with the match second leg third qualifying round of the Champions League Celtic FC – Legia Warsaw, UEFA opened an investigation on the participation by Bartosz Bereszyńskiego.
Club prepares relevant information and explanations which will be sent to UEFA today.
The result of the investigation will inform immediately after its completion.
St Johnstone 1 up at HT after defender Gluteus Maximus deflected a Stevie May shot into his own goal. That’s what it looked like anyway
easyJambo says:
August 7, 2014 at 7:26 pm
0 0 Rate This
An escape route for Celtic?
Robert T. Błaszczak @RobertBlaszczak 5m
Legia have just released a statement that there is a possibility that an ineligible player was fielded against Celtic last night. #UCL
Robert T. Błaszczak @RobertBlaszczak 4m
It could still be a matter of interpretation but things don’t look bright for Legia as we speak. UEFA have confirmed an investigation.
Robert T. Błaszczak @RobertBlaszczak 3m
Legia’s right-back Bereszyński was red-carded last season but wasn’t registered vs St Patrick’s to serve his suspension.
A revised 3-0 scoreline would put Celtic through on away goals.
————————————
If this happens I will die of ironic laughter…
Now that HMRC have decided to appeal the UTT decision I anticipate a collective sigh from the SMSM asking why they simply can’t just accept they’ve lost and move on. No doubt we will get the ironic line of ‘why are they spending public money on this’, before setting out to find out who the Judge supports. Of course, unless the Judge is a Celtic fan we will never be told. That IS the way it works, isn’t it?
Hmmmmmm…,. How would that affect bets put on game?
Para Handy says:
August 7, 2014 at 7:32 pm
1 0 Rate This
If this happens I will die of ironic laughter…
———-
The SFA can set UEFA straight on this, in fact, Legia could appeal based on the precedent set in the ‘Scottish Ruling’
It would be an injustice if Celtic were reinstated.They were a well beaten team by the time the player in question was brought on,around the 86th minute.
Rules are rules though.I’m sure the SFA will back any Celtic appeal.Sandy Bryson’s probably on a plane to UEFA headquarters as we speak.
From
jake the snake @celticservant 9m
More
Precedent? Doesn’t look good.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/2010-09-01-3501825507_x.htm
TSFM says:
August 7, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Oh it could be anything, but therein lies the problem with secret agreements, they open up all sorts of speculation, and deserve to have the public make all kinds of judgements based solely on the fact they are being secretive. Openness and transparency, there’s a good reason why that creates trust and prevents speculation. I think there is a basic assumption that things get hidden for a reason, and it’s usually when there’s something to hide. Of course, if we had even a token journalist within the SMSM, these questions would be being asked, with speculation used to force a response.
From
jake the snake @celticservant 9m
More
Precedent? Doesn’t look good.
It now appears that this is a different issue to the current one.
Welcome back
ecobhoy 🙂
Many congratulations to St Johnstone tonight in putting in a great 2ng leg effort, even although the tie ended in eventual defeat.
Also many congratulations to the 21000 Aberdeen fans who have turned up at Pittodrie tonight, even although it looks like a lost cause against a highly rated Spanish Club.
I would also like to express my delight at the Aberdeen supporter who phoned into Talk Sport this afternoon to castigate the presenter and Celtic “Michael Grey” who had spent the previous 20 minutes stating that Scottish Football was dead because of the current state of Celtic and TRFC 2012.
He went on to state that there would be a full house tonight at Aberdeen while other clubs like Dundee Utd, Motherwell, St Johnstone were thriving compared to the Ugly Sisters.
When he then went on to state that Scottish Football would be even better without Celtic/TRFC 2012, the presenter and “legend” we’re apoplectic with indignation at the thought of them leaving Scottish Football.
As a long suffering Hibs supporter, I agree 100% with this supporter! that it would be the best solution for every other Scottish Football Team, as they would all benefit significantly in this instance.
The SMSM continually complain that Celtic have no competition in Scotland which is true, but they continually fail to balance that by
forgetting to mention that they buy the best players from other Scottish Clubs which weakens them even more, while the permanent love in with TRFC 2012 is just a joke.
There would also be the added benefit that the Scottish Football Authorities would no longer require to bend every rule in the book to protect a football club that has only been in existence for 21/2 years
the wife and my teenage son nearly had a heart attack as I shouted yes as Aberdeen’s second goal went in. 😛
Sincere apologies to the Aberdeen supporters when I said they were chasing a lost cause.
When I started my previous post they were 3-0 down on aggregate and by the time I had finished they were 3-2 down with 30 mins left.
Fantastic stuff even if it does end in eventual defeat.
easyJambo says:
August 7, 2014 at 7:26 pm
5 1 Rate This
An escape route for Celtic?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My live football next year will involve father and son bonding sessions, sometimes across three generations, watching Hearts at Tynecastle.
However last night I took my Dad to Murrayfield to experience a CL game and hope that Celtic might pull of a great escape for the good of the countries euro future hopes. Being older and wiser he commented that if Celtic had keep the three players on that got subbed they still wouldn’t have scored.
Frankly I’d be embarrassed to take such a get out if it came to fruition.
I know we have to tread carefully on the blog but my main observation was that how did Legia manage to put out a team that was mostly home grown with the addition of a handful of Serbs, Croats and Slovaks put six (with two missed pens) past our best team and why can’t we do something similar. The few times they decided to go forward they looked like doing some damage.The excuse of weather facilities etc doesn’t really wash with me if teams like Legia can come here and give our top team a lesson.
wottpi says:
August 7, 2014 at 6:48 pm
5 0 Rate This
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 7, 2014 at 6:24 pm
You raise an interesting point re administration.
As has been discussed before and highlighted by Phil Mac’s belief of the existence of a ten day in and out plan back in January, the time to dump the debt was last season when promotion was in the bag.
———————————————————————
More than a “belief”.
I KNOW that the plan was put together-at some haste-and that Laxey Partners wanted it implemented.
However, BPH and MGH were not very keen on this.
Now that Administration boat has sailed.
LP et al did not-at that point-know about the ‘onerous contracts’.
briggsbhoy says:
August 7, 2014 at 9:03 pm
2 0 Rate This
the wife and my teenage son nearly had a heart attack as I shouted yes as Aberdeen’s second goal went in.
———
Haha! My dog jumped 😀
Real retro Aberdeen stuff. Scottish fitba at its best: skill, commitment, high-energy, never-say-die. Love it.
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
August 7, 2014 at 9:14 pm
2 0 Rate This
wottpi says:
August 7, 2014 at 6:48 pm
5 0 Rate This
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
August 7, 2014 at 6:24 pm
You raise an interesting point re administration.
As has been discussed before and highlighted by Phil Mac’s belief of the existence of a ten day in and out plan back in January, the time to dump the debt was last season when promotion was in the bag.
———————————————————————
More than a “belief”.
I KNOW that the plan was put together-at some haste-and that Laxey Partners wanted it implemented.
However, BPH and MGH were not very keen on this.
Now that Administration boat has sailed.
LP et al did not-at that point-know about the ‘onerous contracts’.
——–
Phil, do you get the sense that Laxey feel ‘misled’ over their investment.