Guest Post by James Forrest
Those who like to read the techno-thrillers of Tom Clancy will remember well the scene in The Sum of all Fears, when the nuclear bomb explodes in Denver, outside the stadium where the Super Bowl is being played. Clancy handles the moment in two very distinct chapters. The second is a vivid and frightening examination of the explosion’s terrible effects as they are felt, firstly in Denver and then experienced around the world.
Before that, he devotes an entire chapter to the mechanics of the explosion itself. Chapters like this are either what attract readers to Clancy in the first place or turn them off entirely. It is technical, it is complex, and the layman who reads it and fully understands it is indeed a massive geek. Of all the times he has loaded the reader with technical detail, this is probably when he risked most in terms of keeping you interested in the story. Yet it works. The chapter is not long, but nor is it short. And the events in it span not seconds but fractions of a second
It was in that chapter I first learned the term “shake”, so named for the old aphorism “a shake of a lamb’s tail”. A “shake” is a term used in nuclear physics. It represents ten nanoseconds. To grasp fully the size of that, consider that there are a billion nanoseconds in a second. The chemical process involved in a nuclear detonation involves a number of “shakes”, with a chain reaction usually completed in 50.
Clancy’s decision to devote an entire chapter of the book to a few nanoseconds came back to me over and over again during the weeks and months of the Rangers crisis. It became clear to me that, drawn out though the events following administration were, what we were seeing was not the effect of the explosion but the explosion itself. Those months were our nanoseconds. Every day, every revelation, every moment we thought was a separate event, was merely a peek inside the bomb case, at the chemical process of a chain reaction.
I would say the chain reaction was completed on the day HMRC announced they were refusing the CVA proposal. That was the detonation. It’s only now we’re witnessing the explosion, and its effects, and in my view we are still a long way from the end of that process. We have had the initial double flash thermal pulse and we’ve seen some EMP effects, but the real damage is still to come. The shock wave and the fireball have yet to spread, and their cumulative effects could yet annihilate Ibrox and extend as far as Hampden.
Am I making claims of “financial Armageddon”? No, I’m not. I never believed the collapse of Rangers would devastate Scottish football. I thought then, and now, that it was scaremongering nonsense to even suggest it. It didn’t matter to me whether the authorities were spreading those stories because of a deep-seated love of the Ibrox club, or because they had bonuses at stake, or out of their own internal, personal weaknesses. Those stories were inconsistent, based on worst case scenarios which were never likely to materialise, and insulting. The notion that the game in this country amounts to no more than one or two teams is offensive.
I love football. I always have. I’m a Celtic supporter, but my interests in the game extend far beyond my own club. At its best, football is a tremendous unifier of people, from those wonderful stories about Christmas Day in the trenches of World War I to the matches organised every year between Palestinian and Israeli children. The game has the potential for tremendous good. I am proud that my own club’s supporters have honoured the dead of Hillsborough and Ibrox. I am proud they unfurled a banner to the Benfica player Miklos Feher, and invaded Seville and showed that city how to party. I am proud of every moment when the supporters of a club applauded an injured player, or staged a silence to honour an official or competitor at another team. Although there are some who would use this sport in a divisive way, who would hijack it for their own ends, I believe this game can still be an inspiration, and find the best in all of us.
I think what happened during this summer, as the fans of every club in the land made their voices heard, was one of the greatest moments in Scottish football’s recent history. I believe it will have an impact far beyond one season. I think it was special.
My concern, as I’ve said, is that the appalling effects of the detonation at Ibrox are still to be fully realised. I am worried about the impact they could yet have on all of us.
Let me be quite specific about the two things that worry me most. They are to do with the decision to grant Sevco/Rangers a license to play in the Scottish Football League this year.
First, I believe the license was granted without sufficient guarantees being given by Charles Green and others that they would respect the decisions taken by the independent judiciary panel of the SPL in relation to EBTs, and secondly, I am concerned that not enough is known about Green and his financial backers, or plans for Rangers, for the authorities to be satisfied that the club is in good financial health. I don’t believe for one second anyone can allay my fears in these two areas. It is obvious to all that due diligence has not been done, and the entire situation at Rangers/Sevco is still shrouded in doubt, and that anything may yet happen.
The independent panel investigating dual contracts is going to have to make the most momentous decision in the history of the game in the UK. I do not believe what Rangers are accused of has any precedent. We are talking about a decade or more in which the results of every single match might be in doubt. Every single game. The rules were not written to envision such an appalling breach of faith. It would seem almost inevitable that stripping of titles will be the smallest of Charles Green and Ally McCoist’s concerns if this verdict goes against them.
Frankly, I don’t see an alternative to suspending Rangers membership of football in this country for at least two years, with points deductions and monetary fines to follow when the suspension period is done. This is not harsh; in fact it falls far short of the maximum penalty, which is expulsion from the game altogether, and as it is the authorities are going to have to do a damned good job of setting out the reasons why that ultimate sanction is not applied. It will not be enough to say it would damage the game in Scotland to wipe the club away. To allow a decade of malfeasance to pass without that ultimate sanction would create the perception that Rangers is above the law, and I cannot think of anything that would do the game more harm than for any club to be considered too big, or too important, to be subject to the regulations.
With their money on the table, I don’t see any way Charles Green and his cohorts will accept the judgement of the independent panel if it has an impact on their plans to recoup their investments. With the way he’s rallied the Rangers fans behind him recently, by essentially talking about a conspiracy against them, I don’t see how he convinces them to accept sanctions, even if he personally was inclined to do so. He has painted himself into a corner where now, if he wants his money at all, he has to fight, and keep on fighting. Without the written guarantee that the club would accept whatever the panel decides, without recourse to the law, I will be shocked if this matter doesn’t end up in the courts somewhere down the line, because I don’t think for one second he signed up to that particular demand.
I think the SFA backed down on this, the most fundamental matter of them all.
Which isn’t to say the due diligence matter isn’t worrying, because, of course, it is. Again, no-one is going to convince me that the SFA has conducted proper due diligence on Charles Green and his backers. No-one will convince me they are satisfied that this club is in safe hands, and that the game in this country will not be rocked by a further implosion at Ibrox. They failed to properly investigate Craig Whyte, because of lax regulations requiring disclosure from the club itself, regulations which are just a joke, but they can be forgiven for that as the press was talking sheer nonsense about him having billions at his disposal, and a lot of people (but not everyone!) were either convinced or wanted to be convinced by him.
To have witnessed what Whyte did, to have witnessed the Duff & Phelps “process” of finding a buyer, and having Green essentially emerge from nowhere, with a hundred unanswered questions as to his background and financing, for the SFA to have given this guy the go ahead, only for it to blow up in their faces later, would annihilate the credibility of the governing body and necessitate resignations at every level. There would be no hiding place.
At an early stage in the Rangers crisis, a couple of people told me they thought the club would not play football for at least a year. I told them of all the possible scenarios that was the most unlikely, because I honestly could see no way back for them once they had gone. There is no precedent I am aware of, anywhere, for a football club taking a “year out” only to return. Certainly, in the context of the Scottish game I didn’t see how it could be done without creating one almighty shambles, or by bending the rules until the elastic snapped.
Yet I’ve since become convinced that it was the correct course of action. The club calling itself Rangers FC is still in a state of flux. The issues still surrounding it are enormous and potentially devastating. There are any number of ways in which the entire edifice could utterly collapse. The liquidators and HMRC could yet challenge the takeover, or the coming share issue. Craig Whyte may yet emerge and take a claim to the courts. The share issue itself could be an utter failure, leaving the club unable to meet annual running costs. All of this, even without the vast effects of the EBT case, which has the potential to wash the whole club away.
Had Rangers been out of the game for a year, these issues could have been properly explored, dealt with and put behind them, and the game as whole.
Of course, it’s just possible that the worst is over. It’s possible that this particular nuclear detonation, like the one is The Sum of All Fears, is an enormous “fizzle”, that the appalling destruction unleashed will not be on the thermonuclear level which could obliterate our hopes of a fresh start, of forward motion for the whole game. It might be that everything at Ibrox is hunky-dory, that this, all I’ve written, is the product of a febrile imagination, on the same level as the financial Armageddon nonsense we spent the summer hearing about.
It may well be, but only if the people who’ve been right all along have suddenly gotten it wrong. The evidence all points to something big, and bad, coming this way.
The smart folks will be hunkering down in their shelters for a while yet.
James is a co-editor of the Famous Tartan Army Magazine, latest issue out 17th October (digital, and free), featuring women’s football
Goosy was right all along, it’s time to end this Pantomime. Fern trading is Octopus, who, Took out a mg01, over ticketus, who, is Octopus, who loaned/löst/laundered 24m to a bankrupt Club. Installed craig whyte, had the cheek too launder, a 2nd tranche, Then subsequently installed Craig whyte Part 2, controlled the Administration, launder launder launder shares issue use Octopus companies. Weatherseal sponsor spl, Octopus Gave 12.5m too solar panel companies last year, launder launder.
The old adage there is no smoke without fire has never been more appropriate
All of the links that these people have with each other has to be more than coincidence
Hopefully BDO will be able to untangle all of it
paulmac2 says:
Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 20:17
2 0 Rate This
Apparently the FTT decision is over 200 pages long…which is why it has taken a couple of weeks longer to produce..the typist has been working overtime…
———————————————————————————————————————
As a civil servant … trust me , no one gets overtime. Also unlikely that any printer has 200 pages worth of paper in it (or ink actually).
Could be a long wait.
Well it looks like it’s a case of no luck Hector ,IMO a more obvious attempt of a phoenix company you would be hard pushed to find .
I know all about the guff of how it has to be the same peepil behind the two companies and all that but just like the FTT result was so bleeding obvious ,so too is the zombie being paraded in blue out of Ibrokes .
Talk about rub your nose in it ,this farce will show everyone how impotent Hector is regards the business world and the way they operate regards the minions and the mighty ,the minions must pay and the mighty get away ,it’s as simple as that .
We all knew that any tribute act that appeared after the death of ragers would do everything they could to show it was the same club and that is fair enough but for HMRC to simply allow a company to so publicly dump 94m of taxes and openly promote themselves as the same entity is IMO utterly shameful and disgusting and don’t give me all the crap about it being a different company ,in the case of football teams the company only exists because of the club ,without the club there is no need for the company to exist
So who cares about the FTT result and the total owed ,all it tells us is what we knew all along ,that there was cheating on an industrial scale at one club in Scottish football ,the only thing that may come from this news is that now all the parties that have been constantly spouting the guff about it being the same club will now be able to tell the gullible the truth and the gullible will be happy to accept it to avoid their tax liability .
wottpi says:
Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 23:44
See my post to corsicacharity earlier….he was mentioned on here on the 4th July!
It must have suited Green’s backers for us to look that way.
panbreid says:
Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 23:56
And Weatherseal is………..Brian Kennedy. Edinburgh born Kennedy will also know Murray through his days at the SRU…who also used Azure catering. Anybody remember who was widely tipped to parachute into Wiggy Brent’s vacant CE role before Regan was appointed? SRU CE Gordon McKie, close personal friend of Murray – who could get Murray Park any time he wanted and who was tipped to take over from Martin Bain at the time of the King announcement
Fern. Whitey sold his options in MHG to…Willow. There was a third one in the ‘set’ ‘but i’ve forgotten it. (just too much info to sort)
The ‘six degrees of seperation’ rule just does not apply to this mob. Murray was famously generous to his pals. (so would I be with £750million of taxpayer’s hard-earned.) He’s been calling every last one of those favours in. It’s going to make a great jigsaw puzzle!
whullie says:
Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 18:23
15 0 i
Rate This
I have just heard Jabba suggest, live on Your Call, that he knows nothing about the suggestions that the findings of the FTT have been sent to the relevant parties.
He then went on to say that he “expected it to be published last week but it wasn’t because it is over 200 pages long and has not been typed up yet”.
He then states that no names of individuals will be used and numbers will be used instead to protect individual identities.
Has his credibility ever been lower?
This man is truly an oaf.
___________________
Just re read this. 🙁 For clarity,my point is this. Jabba knows nothing about the delivery of the decision yet knows all these other smaller details.
Apologies for the omission but it was typed in such a manner that caused serious injury to my fingers. This odious man really does boil my p*sh.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/charles-green-and-craig-whyte-connections-or-coincidences/
agrajag@20.34.
If I buy a paper shop, sell all of the same goods, to the same customers, with the same staff would you consider I was a phoenix trader. HMRC wouldn’t. Not based on those factors alone. That would include so many businesses it would be ludicrous..
…………………………………………….
” I ” would consider it pheonixing if you or your gang had previously owned “said” paper shop, ran it into the ground and bunked out leaving lots of people with “LOTS” of debt then reopened under another alias laughing with the same patrons and laughing “at” the same suppliers…
forweonlyknow@20.41
Not convinced by that! I think the only saving grace for Sevco not phoenixing is if an ex Director or office bearer is NOT involved Happy to be proved wrong..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
and there lies the problem.. proving it….
do you honestly believe this nest of vipers arnt from the same gene pool ?
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 01:22
Is (S)DM still the puppet master in all of this – is he still pulling the strings and coordinating events? Or are you describing a gang of thieves (metaphorically speaking) who move in the same spheres who just have happened to come together for their own gain – (S)DM to get out of RFC and the others to make money.
Graham Spiers with a piece that should really be entitled ‘Fifty Whiffs of Shite’ (I bet he wanted to!)
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/fifty-shifts-of-whyte.19192080
Not sure why the Levein bit is tacked on the end though
whullie on Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 18:23
I have just heard Jabba suggest, live on Your Call…that he “expected it to be published last week but it wasn’t because it is over 200 pages long and has not been typed up yet”..
If its not been “typed” (“inputted” shurely?) How does jabba know the length of it?
wottpi says:
Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 23:44
6 2 Rate This
If Arif Naqvi isn’t directly involved with investment in T’Rangers why has it taken Mr Charles almost 8 weeks to set the record straight? His name was mentioned on 24 August and even in the last few weeks he was being mentioned in the arab press, which is presumably in the geographical zone in which he invests.
Can anyone with a Twitter account tweet BBC’s Chris McLaughlin as it appears he was the one who broke the story of who the investors were. He surely didn’t just pick Naqvi’s name out of thin air.
Maybe Chris can tell us where Naqvi’s name came from??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19376352
————
Wottpi,
It seemed contradictory at the time because Mr Charles had indicated that no one would own more than 10% and yet here was this presentable man in a nice suit who owned 18%. He also had over-the-horizon wealth, well the word billions was mentioned in one piece*. It would indeed be good to know who fed the info to CM. Is there a wee office somewhere with people whose sole aim in life is to invent false, though entirely plausible stories? With Yorkshire Pudding and Newcastle Brown the new succulent lamb and fine wines?
* http://www.arabianbusiness.com/abraaj-boss-named-as-top-rangers-shareholder-470798.html
Your call podcast link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ng005
About 35-36 minutes in SC starts the discussion on the Internet chatter regarding the delivery of the FTTT decision to MIH and HMRC.
I listened to this again, JT sounds very precise in his description as to the format of the write-up of the FTTT decision. Not just the 200 page issue, his discussion on redaction and the use of numbers for names.
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 01:22
Danish Pastry says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 08:21
I think the BBC story on Naqvi has just been circulted around the worlds press rooms.
However as TallBoy says he got a mention as early as 4July.
Given all the ducking and diving behind the scenes over the past few years you would have thought that a jouro worth their salt would just want to bottom this one out for the sake of clarity. Especially if you had been fed a duff story in the first place?? If you had been fed the name and it is now claimed to be BS, the next question is surtely why?
As TallBoy says it is just like Adidas, Disney, Apple etc. Mr Charles just throws in a name to make him sound the big man but when it comes down to it he his nothing but a poor man’s Del Boy Trotter holding Triggers Broom?
troubledfan says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 06:52
Not convinced by that! I think the only saving grace for Sevco not phoenixing is if an ex Director or office bearer is NOT involved Happy to be proved wrong..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
and there lies the problem.. proving it….
do you honestly believe this nest of vipers arnt from the same gene pool ?
————————————-
no! my exact point in fact! ; My whole issue is how dangerous a precedent this sets. Driving me nuts! From August:
(B) A Dangerous Precedent
Posted on August 20, 2012
From merely being ‘aware’ of Rangers FC PLC’s money worries just over 18 months ago (probably longer) to the absolute ‘certainty’ that they would be liquidated about 8 months back, I’ve quite enjoyed watching this whole situation unfold.
I’ve enjoyed the banter. I’ve been amazed at some of the revelations (although Phil & CQN seemed to always give us all a wee heads up 😉 and in general it’s been a good time for Celtic fans to have a wee gloat … although I’m quite uncomfortable rubbing it in to my ‘Rangers’ friends faces if the truth be told. Twitter has been that outlet for me 😉
But something’s changed over the past 2 weeks or so. I’m actually getting a bit frustrated/annoyed/angry about it all now.
A company ran itself into the ground, at best trading insolvent for at least 2-3 years, accumulated over £100 million worth of debt. Went into administration, failed to exit said ‘fix’ and is soon to be liquidated.
Another company has opened up shop at the same premises (new company registration number) decided that they can ‘buy’ the logo/badge and trade as an almost identical entity from the company that is no more. Can someone please explain to me why this is being allowed to happen?
If this is such an easy fix then why did Barings Bank not sell it’s name and offices to the lowest bidder (£5.5M ???) and start again debt free?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank
“Barings Bank (1762 to 1995) was the oldest merchant bank in London[1] until its collapse in 1995 after one of the bank’s employees, Nick Leeson, lost £827 million ($1.3 billion) due to speculative investing…”
As a business owner (more than a celtic and football fan) I am absolutely disgusted at how this is panning out! Normal service resumed. The Bears are breaking, sorry making up records. The MSM have nothing but great TRFC stories alongside ‘snarling’ images of Neil lennon with a team in crisis! De Ja Vu anyone?
The precedent seems to have been set. It’s with this in mind that I make a small suggestion to all SPL teams, in fact all Scottish Football clubs. Enter administration, take the 10 point (or whatever that might get changed to) hit. Remove a massive chunk of debt and run your club based on the new ‘state of Scottish Fitba’. If indeed it’s as bad as they, not sure who ‘they’ are now though, then liquidation should be on the menu.
As you have seen. Liquidation will mean that you get to start a new company (OK with a new registration number) you buy your dead clubs IP & assets for a song, the SFA will transfer your dead share without too much grief and, given recent reports, you would only have to start in the 3rd tier. Even better is the fact that you haven’t been found to be cheating on an industrial scale so there will be no transfer embargos for you to face. Strange as it may seem you will even be allowed to pretend that the ‘history’ continues! Happy days!
Debt Free and back in the top tier, or wherever you feel comfortable, in a few years!
Or maybe BDO will look at this whole sorry situation and say:
“Wait a minute you can’t do that! If we let Sevco and liquidated Rangers FC PLC do this then others might try it”?
I’m sure we’ll find out soon
As to the involvement of CG in Rangers FC PLC, he was specifically appointed under Clause 4.21* of the CVA Proposal, specifically referred to in 5.15**, and his company, Sevco is referred to throughout the proposal. This means he was involved in the preparation of the Proposal that assigned him his role in day-to-day management of the PLC in Administration.
*4.21 From 6 June 2012, Charles Green will be appointed to assist in the day-to-day management of the business of the Company (at no cost to the Company or the Joint Administrators), in order to manage the ongoing trading costs of the Company and allow for a smooth transition in ownership.
**5.15 ….However, in the event that the Company‘s trading revenue is insufficient to meet the CVA Trading Costs, and subject to the appointment of Charles Green being made in accordance with paragraph 4.21, the Joint Administrators may request Sevco to consent (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld) to the use of monies in the Account to meet the CVA Trading Costs, as is anticipated.
jonnyod says:
… and don’t give me all the crap about it being a different company ,in the case of football teams the company only exists because of the club ,without the club there is no need for the company to exist.
==============================
If anything doesn’t exist it is “the club” once a company has been formed. A members club changes it’s status and becomes a company. Some then go on to become public companies. However the bottom line is that The Club and The Company are the same thing. To separate them is to regurgitate this “the club is owned by the holding company nonsense”.
So your thesis is basically that football clubs should be treated differently from other businesses, and it is a position which seems well supported on this forum, certainly by how you have been thumbed.
You think he rules should be applied differently to football clubs than they are to a paper shop or an engineering works.
That says a lot about the whole “without fear or favour” motif.
If HMRC or any other government department have rules they should follow them. If they are considered wrong then the rules should be changed. However they should not simply be ignored. HMRC should not be allowed to just make things up as they go along, that would be fundamentally wrong.
No matter how much I despise whatn Rangers did, how their assets were transferred and how the new club is behaving we must stick by the existing rules, without fear or favour. To do any differently makes us no better than the cheats, liars and thiefs.
If New Rangers can be demonstrated to be a phoenix club, then please treat them as such. However it has to be evidenced based on the existing rules and regulations. Not on the notion that it is obviously the case.
Agrajag
That is my whole point ,If the rules are there and ragers can still pull off this stunt then the rules are not worth Jack .
What is the point of having the current rules if they can be so easily exploited ,It IMO makes HMRC look toothless and an irrelevance
Maybe with such a public show of how impotent HMRC look in this case ,we may get tighter rules put in place .
Long Time Lurker,
Apologies if it was not RTC Twitter. I cannot remember now where it was so will look again.
Certainly something odd in JT’s certainty on volume etc.
Thanks for link, much appreciated.
Forweonlyknow 21 Oct 09:19
Re your advice to all teams to liquadate themselves, wipe the slate clean and start again with all their history and none of the debt in the third division.
If they were to get to together as a unit and do this on mass how embarrasing would that be for the SFA. They could form a new Premier League or all move to the third and the 3rd instantly becomes the top league! If it was alright for one club to do is it not alright for them all? Maybe Rangers will have moved up to the second having won the 3rd.
None of this will happen though as European Football is two important.
BREAKING NEWS.
A well know Nigerian prince and his family have expressed strong interest in opening up a European office headquartered in Glasgow Scotland.
The Prince, when asked why he considered Glasgow, replied that his contacts in Glasgow hinted that there may be rich pickings in Scotland, but was warned to stay away from football, particularly the SFA, as getting involved with them could bring the Prince’s family business down.
The Prince made it clear that he is looking for office space and contacts have pointed him in the direction of Ibrox or Hampden, as these properties may shortly be on the market.
The Prince is very excited about this prospect and says the final decision will be taken shortly – sources say the final decision regarding location of these offices will be taken this week and that it is a toss-up between Glasgow and Mogadishu, with Glasgow the front-runner at the moment. .
Reuters New York office 10.30 pm. eastern time.
Hello all, first time poster.
I’ve been following RTC Blog and now this site. We are getting close to the next chapter in the story. It has been a long journey so far but I don’t believe we are anywhere near the end. There are too many stakeholders in this yet to play there hand.
I wanted to jump in and comment on Agrajag’s posts. You might not like the message, but you cannot fault the logic. There are rules in place to deal with these things. There are people on the site that only want Rangers to disappear. I have to confess, I won’t lose any sleep if they do. However, I also recognise there are many genuine Rangers fans who love their club and don’t deserve to see it go under. Charles Green, love or loathe him, is a business man who is entitled to try to make a go of the Rangers business and assets he acquired. If it is shown he was part of a grand plot to defraud creditors of the soon-to-be-dead RFC then justice will have to take its course. I don’t believe the newco Rangers is a Pheonix. Whether they are entitled to claim the history and continuity is a debate that has been done to death. BDO will have the deciding vote on that, with help from their friends at HMRC.
One challenge from an oldco Rangers creditor would put the cat amongst the pigeons. Anyone know any?
jonnyod says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 10:27
0 1 i
Rate This
Agrajag
That is my whole point ,If the rules are there and ragers can still pull off this stunt then the rules are not worth Jack .
====================
What stunt.
I’m afraid the analogy holds, and it happens all the time. Companies fail and someone else comes in and buys the assets and continues trading. They use the same premises and the same staff, on the same terms and conditions. They make it into a profitable business because they maybe get a new contract, or are better at managing or can cut other costs. Whatever the reason. That’s the whole point of the Enteprise Act and things like pre-pack administration. If a company cannot be saved (via a CVA) then there are other options. Obviously it wan’t a pre-pack in Rangers case (some people thought it would be) but it was the same in all but name. Or at least a very similar concept.
The difference is when the same people are behind the business and all they are doing is shedding debt but they end up still controlling the same assets etc. That is when you get into the realms of contrived insolvency, phoenix trading etc.
Now if someone has evidence of that, great, get it put forward and prosecute the people involved. I would love it.
However the same staff (players), wearing the same uniforms (strips), working in the same factory (stadium), producing the same servicce (football), selling to the same customers (fans) is not evidence of contrived insolvency or phoenix trading.
You might think the rules are wrong and should be changed. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I personally think we should be looking at people who abuse the system. If the people who own(ed) Rangers have done that then hopefully the evidence will be found and they will be held to account. If not then they must be treated the same way as everyone else. That is what the people who posted on RTC demanded, everyone to be treated according to the same rules. I’m sorry if the feeling here is different.
It’s not like the previous club had a history of absuing legitimate systems in order to profit from cheating.
Excuse this layman’s perspective, but has public opinion any weight in law? Since mid May until
he took over in mid June, CG was the face and voice of RFC. He was viewed as such by the
Admins ,who disappeared from sight. He was viewed as such by the authorities, who allowed him
to attend meetings which he had no right to attend..He was viewed as such by the media, who
gave him unfettered access to their outlets. He consistently used ‘we’ and ‘us’in his statements
and revelled in the publicity of RFC’S new owner ( sic ) .Does this not have any impact at all ?
To deembo
The Administrators made is quite clear that Charles Green was involved to aid the transition of ownership. And owner he duly became in time of the business and assets of oldco Rangers. If I was intending to sell my business, it makes perfect sense that the future owners should attend key meetings with key stakeholders. I would want them to meet suppliers and, of course, trade / governing bodies. The new owner should, I would say must, be at meetings that will have an important bearing on the future of the business. Sorry, don’t see how that makes any difference.
deembo says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 11:04
=======================
Yes, it has.
We can all influence the law by getting it changed. By picking representatives who listen to us. By lobbying for issues we consider important. By voting and being part of the democratic process. By writing to our MPs and telling them what we aren’t happy about. There are lots of things we can do.
The alternative is incredibly tall hats, burning brands and pitch forks, but that only really works in movies like the wonderfully bad “Van Helsing”, which goes right through bad out the other side and becomes good.
You know what they say, “for evil to prosper …” and so forth.
beatipacificiscotia@11:10
Thanks for that .Back to lurking.
beatipacificiscotia says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 10:56
======================
Ironically if they are a phoenix club then if anything they have a better claim on the history in my view.
That’s the main point here. I believe that it is a new company, a new club, a New Rangers. All the evidence I have seen whether it has been in a business sense, or how they are treated as a football club points to that.
They are a new club, with no history and are building from there. I am fine with that, so long as it is the accepted position and they don’t want to have it both ways.
If, in a legal sense, it is shown that they are a phoenix company and that the same people (directly or indirectly) own and operate the business then we really do get into the World of contrived insolvency and phoenix trading.
For my mind that steps things up onto a whole new level. It would be massive, some might even say nuclear.
On a different subject, which is what I really wanted to talk about …
I don’t know if this has been suggested before, but what do UEFA do when the FTTT result is in?
Do they act immediately?
Do they wait for the SPL enquiry to deliver a result?
Do they wait to see what the SPL / SFA punishment is?
Do they even care about what is happening with Rangers?
I think everyone on here *know* oldco Rangers are guilty of dual contracts and tax evasion. What do the SPL / SFA have to do to satisfy UEFA that is has been dealt with effectively in-house? It has to be a strong message in my opinion. Here’s my take:
Stripping of all titles won during the EBT years
Maximum fines available
5yr ban from the SPL / Top League (whatever that happens to be called at the time)
10yr ban from UEFA competition
I have stopped short of termination of membership. Any thoughts?
forweonlyknow says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 09:19
16 0 Rate This
———-
Great post. Sums up a lot of the frustration and anger that most us no doubt feel. Be quite an event if financially troubled SPL teams did try the same trick en masse. Of course, no one would wish that as you don’t want clubs willfully cheating people out of what is rightfully owed them. But some kind of threat of united action might serve to make point.
I have wondered if the goings on at Hearts indicate that Vlad might actually be considering it.
Agrajag says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 10:57(Edit)
_____________________________________
I think many folks are mixing up their emotions with the facts here. If Halls of Broxburn for example are liquidated, but someone other than the existing owners buys the brand and the factory, retains the company name and its workers, and sells sausages in the same packaging to the same public, our instincts will be to say, “Well done to the new owners!”.
The current situation with Rangers is no different. Agrajag is absolutely correct. I also think we may be taking our eye off the ball here.
Our purpose is not about a GIRUY at Rangers fans (which may be at the root of the charges of Phoenixism). It is to try to ensure that the correct information is brought out and not covered up by a complicit MSM. It is to attempt to ensure that the people who run our national game are accountable for their actions. Thusly, it is to compel the authorities to apply the rules without fear or favour.
We are not an anti Rangers site. We are anti corruption. Charles Green may well be taking ordinary fans of Rangers for a ride. He may be in the fullness of time exposed as either an opportunist, or as a saviour of Rangers legacy. However, unless his involvement with D&P constitutes a shadow directorship of Oldco, he is not guilty of Phoenixing.
Just want to add I’m going on the premise that Rangers continuity in membership with the SFA means the punishments will be delivered to, and accepted by, the new Sevco Rangers. I’m not confused about the oldco / newco situation. That is a whole different debate. I really only interested in people’s thoughts on what UEFA might do.
It looks like one of those days when some old trollers will be pheonixing back onto the site ,its a no news day ,everyone can enjoy a day of rest,tune in again Monday.
SC and GS talking about FTTT decision on Off the Ball Sunday supplement.
beatipacificiscotia @ 11:33
FIFA/UEFA will do absolutely nothing
After all, if reports are to be believed, the SFA/SPL come a long way behind them in the corruption allegation stakes
beatipacificiscotia says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 11:33
0 0 Rate This
Just want to add I’m going on the premise that Rangers continuity in membership with the SFA means the punishments will be delivered to, and accepted by, the new Sevco Rangers. I’m not confused about the oldco / newco situation. That is a whole different debate. I really only interested in people’s thoughts on what UEFA might do.
==================================
No, no, no!
The SFA transferred Rangers membership to Sevco. There is no continuity. If they were recognised as the same club, no transfer would have been required. The current version of Rangers will not accept any punishment for the sins of the original. They will not be punished for something that happened before they existed.
In any case, Sevco’s version of Rangers FC have no legitimate interest – whatever the SPL do in respect of the original Rangers’ cheating.
There will, of course, be an adjustment of all relevant match results (to 0-3 losses) and a consequential correction to league tables; but since Rangers FC plc are no longer operating as a football club, It is unlikely that the SPL will apply any punishment to the old club at all.
It is more likely, I would think, that the SPL commission will look at the conduct of the club officials – and especially those that are still involved in the game.
As long as the SPL make the necessary corrections & the SFA/SPL punish those individuals within their reach – and since the miscreants no longer exists as a football club – UEFA will not be interested.
Except….
…UEFA just might wonder why RFC plc were given a club licence, apparently without meeting the published criteria.
Why if it is a Newco are CG and AMcC adamant that they will fight any stripping of titles? Surely nothing whatsoever to do with them.
troubledfan says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 06:37
Rate This
agrajag@20.34.
If I buy a paper shop, sell all of the same goods, to the same customers, with the same staff would you consider I was a phoenix trader. HMRC wouldn’t. Not based on those factors alone. That would include so many businesses it would be ludicrous..
…………………………………………….
” I ” would consider it pheonixing if you or your gang had previously owned “said” paper shop, ran it into the ground and bunked out leaving lots of people with “LOTS” of debt then reopened under another alias laughing with the same patrons and laughing “at” the same suppliers…
—————————————————
troubledfan: This is where HMRC will let you down. They have no appetite, resources or skills to deal with phoenixism, contrived liquidations or successor companies.
Further, the unprecedented statement released by HMRC at the time of rejecting the CVA contains, at least for me the following worrying phrase:
“….by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years.”
Is “recent years”, is this an indication that HMRC have no interest in pursuing Murray personally and a pointer to some unfinished business that may have with Whyte.
Just a thought!
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/rangers.htm
Not sure if this has already been covered….but having seen the press comments from Charlie that he has has the Green light to allow Mike Ashley to become a shareholder/investor in Rangers…I knew that could not be the case..
Under UEFA rules a person cannot be a shareholder at 2 clubs where he has the power to make decisions at one of those clubs…as per the details below in the last paragragh…
I am astounded no one in the MSM has bothered checkingthis
……
UEFA Rules
The UEFA Rules were brought in following a high profile case in 2000 and were first established for the 2000/01 season. The rule prohibits two football clubs in which a person or a company has an interest from being admitted into the same UEFA club competition.
What is meant as having an interest in another club?
Having an interest in another football club has been defined as meaning the following:
The majority of the shareholders’ voting rights in another club in the same UEFA club competition
The right to appoint or remove a majority of the directors in another club in the same UEFA club competition
The majority of the shareholders’ voting rights (through a shareholders’ agreement) in another club in the same UEFA club competition
Following the initial implementation of these rules the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled fully on the UEFA rules stating that any shareholding of 50.1% or more would potentially breach the UEFA rules at point 1 above. Furthermore the CAS also added on a further situation which should fall within the UEFA rules – a person or a company would also be seen to fall foul of the UEFA rules when they can exercise a decisive influence over the decision making of another club.
It seems that Charlie believes its the amount of shares that constitute what is acceptable…
paulmac2 @ 12:28
Charlie’s interpretation of the rule, is that it doesn’t apply to Sevco, as they have never taken part in a UEFA competition
midcalderan says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 12:19
Being pedantic.
That statement was published this year I believe, 2012.
It talks about owners in “recent years”. That take you back to at least 2010.
That is the whole of Whyte’s tenure, and beyond.
Though I do tend to agree with your basic premise and suspect that it is Whyte they will be most interested in. Hence them putting BDO in place. From what I can see they were sanguine about who the administrators were (so long as it happened that day), but adamant who the liquidator was going to be.
Who knows what deals Mr Murray may have struck with regard MIH / Rangers PLC / Tax cases and the like.
When the car crash (recently updated to train crash, copyright C. Whyte) of the Rangers saga dawned, there were various means by which I naively expected the whole story to be brought into the light by various means, ie
the media – mostly a dead duck as the Scottish journalists with connections and access to news outlets turned out to be partially or completely compromised (with a few notable exceptions) and the English press just didn’t think it was a story that would interest the majority of their punters (Alex Thomson and very occasional Guardian interest apart)
the ex-Rangers board – fair enough for them to remain silent, as they are no doubt under legal advice not to do anything that might incriminate themselves
the Scottish football authorities – a mixture of being compromised and generally out of their depth sank them
the administrators – being charitable, seemingly succumbed to Stockholm syndrome. (Any assessment of anything more dubious seems to have been sucked into a legal vacuum surrounding Lord Hodge)
UEFA / FIFA – any noise heard from that direction so far has turned out just to be the sound of wind whistling through the Emmental. (Other than the occasional fury about the wrong advertising on Nicolas Bentner’s shorts)
The police – maybe ongoing investigations into associated activities will bring something relevant into the open, maybe not
Next up? BDO. Given the track record so far of the how searching the examinations have been, maybe we shouldn’t get our hopes up. Nevertheless, fingers crossed that someone in a position of real authority moves to clear up the mess. Please
yourhavingalaugh says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 11:39(Edit)
It looks like one of those days when some old trollers will be pheonixing back onto the site ,its a no news day ,everyone can enjoy a day of rest,tune in again Monday.
____________________________________________________________________
There has been an astonishing number of First Time Posters in the last few days. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt, but I do fear a readiness to pounce when the FTT news hits.
Remember trolling only works if you fail to ignore it ….
Agrajag says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 09:47
21 2 Rate This
jonnyod says:
… and don’t give me all the crap about it being a different company ,in the case of football teams the company only exists because of the club ,without the club there is no need for the company to exist.
==============================
If anything doesn’t exist it is “the club”…………..
If New Rangers can be demonstrated to be a phoenix club, then please treat them as such. However it has to be evidenced based on the existing rules and regulations. Not on the notion that it is obviously the case.
—————————-
Agreed.
beatipacificiscotia says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 11:29
I think that UEFA will act if other member associations complain that whilst playing in Europe RFC fielded players who were not registered within the rules of the game. Thus, the dual contracts investigation and any subsequent appeal to the SFA will have to play out first.
If/when UEFA get involved I think that this will then see clarity over some of the questions that have been raised here on issues of club, holding company etc.
Initially my thoughts were on a extended European ban being handed down to TRFC. However, if UEFA may find that they are not is a position to hand down any sporting punishment to TRFC.
What if UEFA then fail to recognise the licence that the SFA have provided TRFC with, and then move to force the SFA to apply the rules – i.e. no domestic licence until TRFC can provide x3 years of accounts etc. This could get very messy.
If the FTTT decision points to deliberate abuse of the EBT scheme and an awareness that dual contracts were in operation (by the management of the Club) it will be interesting to see how this is reported in the media across Europe.
If the media outwith the Scottish MSM report the story as a significant sporting scandal then there will be pressure for the SFA and UEFA to act.
I believe that RFC/TFRC believe that they are to big to fail and that from a domestic point of view they will be looked after. The UEFA dimension introduces great risk, as there is more chance of the sporting rules being applied without fear or favour.
campsiejoe says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 12:36
paulmac2 @ 12:28
Charlie’s interpretation of the rule, is that it doesn’t apply to Sevco, as they have never taken part in a UEFA competition
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joe..I think Charlie is basing his thoughts on the EPL where you are not permitted to hold more than 30% in 2 clubs at the same time as this has the potential of ownership of one or both clubs…which is a conflict of interest…
The idea that someone can be major shareholder in two clubs who may compete in the same compeition and as such meet each other runs totally contrary to any notion of fair play and fairness.
That someone could be the major shareholder in an English premiership club and a substantial shareholder in a Scottish senior club cannot be within the rules, can it.
In theory Rangers could be competing in European competitio in a few years time, as could Newcastle. If they are it is likely to be the same competition. It would not be proper for someone to have a substantial holding in both. Particularly if he also had major commercial contracts with both clubs.
paulmac2 @ 12:50
I wish we had a sarcasm smiley thingy on here !
I was playing on his the SPL can’t touch us, as we have never been members statement
It will be pretty grim reading for oldco/newco et al if this report is over 200 pages long.
A late surge in Autumn holidays reported.. .
TSFM says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 11:33
_____________________________________
I think many folks are mixing up their emotions ………
Our purpose is not about a GIRUY at Rangers fans (which may be at the root of the charges of Phoenixism). It is to try to ensure that the correct information is brought out …….
—————————————–
You are correct, “It is to try to ensure that the correct information is brought out”. Has anyone any idea what convinced FTT(T) that it was proper to hold the hearing in private which in turn makes it difficult to ensure that the correct information is brought out.
Which one or more of the following conditions brought about the private hearing?
“All hearings will be held in public except where the tribunal gives a direction that the hearing, or part of it, is to be held in private. The tribunal can restrict access to the hearing if it thinks it is justified
• in the interests of public order or national security
• in order to protect a person’s right to respect for private and family life
• in order to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive information
• in order to avoid serious harm to the public interest, or
• because not to do so would prejudice the interests of justice.”
HirsutePursuit @ 12.10
Interesting take, and I daresay you are right. Unfortunately, the SFA have created a halfway house situation that is neither one thing nor another. It effectively opens the door for Newco Rangers to be Newco / Oldco when it suits them. I agree Newco Sevco Rangers is an entirely new entity and should be immune to any punishments of the old and soon-to-be gone RFC. The SFA have asked them to pay football debts and accept any punishments due to them, in return for transfer of membership (as we all know). This give legitimacy to the fact they are the old Rangers wrapped up in a new corporate shell.
As far as I can see, we have to accept that old Rangers continue to exist in its shiny new wrappings. You can argue that this should not be the case, but you would be behind the times if you do. The situation is what it is. So on the basis that Rangers must accept the punishments coming, what must the SFA do to avoid UEFA throwing their weight around? UEFA really will apply their rules without fear or favour, and without losing a wink of sleep about it.
I have been thinking about this for a number of months. I actually went on SSB and asked the question “what must the SFA do to avoid UEFA taking control” which is surely a nightmare scenario for T’Rangers. I was very disappointed with the answer I got on SSB, simply “wait and see what the result is” and they moved on. UEFA could be the single largest challenge facing Newco Rangers.
HirsutePursuit, UEFA may agree with you and unpick the whole situation with a ruling. Interesting times ahead.
The phoenix argument has been going on since RTC days, and our legal and business experts will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the spirit of the law is that the rules are there to prevent people who benefit financially from the running of a company being able to simply shed debts and start again.
The rules are not in place to prevent the employees of a company continuing in employment.
The rules are not in place to prevent the customers of a company continuing to be customers or to derive satisfaction from still having a favourite brand available.
Therefore HMRC appear to have done nothing wrong in terms of how they view the new company. The SFA on the other hand, have broken their own rules by allowing the new company to participate in senior football without the appropriate criteria being satisfied.
Long Time Lurker @ 12.48
You are pretty much of the same mind. My concern is your “when / if” is where this might be going. It will either be “the end”, or nothing of any note will be said done.
I have not real wish to see Rangers die, I’m just sickened by corruption. Play by the rules, or get out the game.
midcalderan says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 13:00
==========================
For me it is Public Order, simple as that.
Can you imagine the situation where there was a public tribunal regarding Rangers’ appeal. That it became known where it was being heard, and that people could go. Then take a prominent public figure giving evidence at that Tribunal. Evidence under oath which shows that Rangers were cheating for years and the board new it. In fact it was a matter of policy that they continue this cheating. make that someone like a top player, manager, or member of the board.
Probably add in a person’s right to respect for private and family life actually, when you think about it.
It would have been carnage for the FTT to have been held in public, to have been watched and reported on a daily basis. For those giving evidence to have been identified.
Much as I think it should have been, I can actually understand the arguments why it wasn’t. Even if I disagree with them. I can understand why the authorities decided that in this instance the needs of public order took precedence. I don’t think it is going too far to suggest that lives would have been at risk. The incredibly tall hats, pitchforks and burning brands may actually have been deployed.
campsiejoe says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 12:57
paulmac2 @ 12:50
I wish we had a sarcasm smiley thingy on here !
I was playing on his the SPL can’t touch us, as we have never been members statement
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Believe me I got the sarcasm angle Joe.. 🙂
Agrajag says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 12:55
That someone could be the major shareholder in an English premiership club and a substantial shareholder in a Scottish senior club cannot be within the rules, can it.
——
I don’t see why not, in the meantime at least.
TRFC aren’t going to be playing in Europe for the next two seasons at least. If it comes to the position where both TRFC and Newcastle qualify for the same competition, then the guy would have to back out of one or the other.
Being that this all seems something of a Fly By Night operation, I don’t think he’ll be working to that sort of timescale anyway.
What about Vlad over at Hearts – does he not have controlling interests in both Hearts and Kaunas? Or is that via companies?
midcalderan says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 13:00
This was discussed on RTC several times.
IIRC the collective wisdom coalesced around RTC’s analysis that it suited all parties to hold the hearing in private and there was nothing sinister in the decision.
The judges may have backed this cosy agreement by saying it was necessary to hold the hearing in private in the “interests of public order”.
RTC pointed out that MIH didn’t want the hearing held in public for obvious reasons.
He also said that HMRC’s lawyers didn’t want to present evidence against the backdrop of a public gallery packed with baying Vanguard Bears.
The lawyers and the judges all no doubt felt it was simply much better all round to hold the hearing in private.
This analysis made sense to me.
However, the fact it was held in private still does not sit well.
It really was all too cosy and many posters have been uncomfortable with the private nature of the hearing right from the start.
angus1983 says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 13:28
0 0 i
Rate This
Agrajag says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 12:55
That someone could be the major shareholder in an English premiership club and a substantial shareholder in a Scottish senior club cannot be within the rules, can it.
——
I don’t see why not, in the meantime at least.
TRFC aren’t going to be playing in Europe for the next two seasons at least. If it comes to the position where both TRFC and Newcastle qualify for the same competition, then the guy would have to back out of one or the other.
====================================
How does one “back out” of owning shares.
I just think it’s wrong, you disagree.
If the rules say it is OK, then fair enough.
TSFM says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 11:33
I think many folks are mixing up their emotions with the facts here. If Halls of Broxburn for example are liquidated, but someone other than the existing owners buys the brand and the factory, retains the company name and its workers, and sells sausages in the same packaging to the same public, our instincts will be to say, “Well done to the new owners!”……..
=================
I agree 100%. I have a bad habit of writing with my tongue, firmly, in my cheek… sometimes to illustrate certain things.
I actually believe (sort of know) that they are indeed a new company with a brand new registration number (and VAT number I’d imagine) therefore, good luck to them and I applaud Charles Green and his consortium, and wish them well in the future.
Just don’t be pretending to have won 54 (soon to be 49) titles! 😉
John.
raycharlez @ 13.30
There are rumours that certain witnesses were put under extreme scrutiny at the FTTT hearing and were forced to change the story the thought they would be telling. It was mentioned in the book “Downfall” that an insider noted the questioning was robust, to say the least. I don’t think the words Pit Bull were mentioned, but you get the idea. The ropey stories were savaged.
There is nothing to worry about there, I trust.
One would assume…that the FTT verdict having been delivered a couple of days back to both party’s…they would have had time to read through the verdict and that the ‘NOT GUILTY’ verdict would have been plastered across the papers of the usual suspects.
I guess the lack of we are innocent speeches suggests all efforts are being considered on how to dilute the content of said verdict….maybe expalins why the lights have been on all night at Jobbies hoose!
Seems all may not be well at Ibrox.
@PeterAdamSmith: Lee McCulloch talking about fights in Rangers dressing room. 1) All isn’t right at Ibrox. 2) They were hardly riled up in 2nd half either!
good point about mad vlad. he has 3 teams does he not – mtk, kaunas and hertz. abramovic has two teams doesn’t he – chelski and one of the moscow teams?
what i can’t understand though, is, why doesn’t sevco have to tell the sfa, who ALL the “backers” are? transparency – we deserve to know !!
beatipacificiscotia says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 13:09
My use of if/when is an attempt to be balanced in presenting my views, rather than any doubt on my part of UEFA not acting. I am reluctant to say anything definitive without any verifiable evidence.
If the RTC use of EBTs provides evidence of industrial scale cheating of the tax man and sporting rules both domestic and European, then I feel UEFA will act. I think that the likelihood of UEFA acting will increase if the story takes of in the UK and across Europe.
For the last 12-18 months the elephant in the room for Rangers was the FTTT – I think we are about to see UEFA enter into the fray. That’s one animal that Rangers have no control over. Rangers in order to fulfill their ambitions and sense of self-importance need European competition for the glory and the money. They must be worried at the medium term loss of access to European competition. On balance I think that this will happen. I’m not sure of the mechanics of how UEFA would move to deny access Rangers to European competition.
I am with you in that I do not want to see Rangers as a club die. I just want to see the rules of civil and sporting law applied correctly. I am angered in that other clubs have played by the rules, and in most instances they have had to stretch themselves to try and catch-up with RFC, where Murry et al borrowed and lived outwith their means in an attempt to kill the competition.
Having been hooked by contributions both to the RTC blog and TSFM, and having read around the subject I cannot see how this ends well for RFC/TRFC. Perhaps their only salvation will be to start again, from scratch.
TSFM says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 13:06
1 0 Rate This
The phoenix argument has been going on since RTC days, and our legal and business experts will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the spirit of the law is that the rules are there to prevent people who benefit financially from the running of a company being able to simply shed debts and start again.
The rules are not in place to prevent the employees of a company continuing in employment.
The rules are not in place to prevent the customers of a company continuing to be customers or to derive satisfaction from still having a favourite brand available.
Therefore HMRC appear to have done nothing wrong in terms of how they view the new company. The SFA on the other hand, have broken their own rules by allowing the new company to participate in senior football without the appropriate criteria being satisfied.
===================================================
I’m not sure that HMRC have taken a firm view of the new club… yet.
As I posted earlier, the new club will only be regarded as a phoenix if the liquidators identify a link between the directors of that old club and those involved in setting up or running the the new entity.
If they regard Charles Green as having been a de-facto director of Ranger Football Club plc (when appointed by the administrators 🙁 ), BDO will almost certainly seek a CoS direction to confirm their opinion.
If a noble lord thinks that Charles was given the powers of a director at RFC plc (by D&P prior to the purchase of its assets to Sevco), a barrow load of the steaming brown stuff will collides with a very big whirly thing.
HMRC, will not accuse Charles Green of criminal behaviour, until/unless they are 100% certain of their case. Until BDO are in place, HMRC will simply be keeping their powder dry.
raycharlez says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 13:30
0 0 Rate This
midcalderan says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 13:00
—— However, the fact it was held in private still does not sit well.
It really was all too cosy and many posters have been uncomfortable with the private nature of the hearing right from the start.
————————–
Thanks. It’s a sad day when civil justice has to administered in private because of the baying Vanguard Bears or indeed any other class of baying citizens.
raycharlez says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 13:30
midcalderan says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 13:00
———————————————–
Surely a large part of the reason for an in camera hearing was the nature of the evidence. Although principaly dealing with RFC paying employees in an alledged illegal manner,those employees are not “on trial”. However there would be a requirement to divulge information about those employees and the contracts that they signed.
Those employees are entitled to confidentiality and privacy (Mark Daly bad) no matter how you view the morality of their participation in a tax avoidance/evasion scheme.It was the tax due by RFC under PAYE that was in dispute.Not the employees.
As far as I am concerned Rangers in their present form cannot survive without SPL income and probably still at least Europa income. For me the numbers simply don’t add up. Not with the number of staff, having to run Murray Park and Ibrox Stadium, and all the other costs. The Policing costs for example do not go down if the number of customers stays the same but they are just paying less for a ticket. Neither do the fuel bills, or the public liability insurance.
An injection of working capital, through a share issue is a short term solution to this problem. However it is prety much a one-off. They can’t really keep returnng to that particularly gullible well.
All the talk off massively increasing merchandising, media sales etc is just so much bluff and bluster. It is trying to raise the feelgood factor, making it seem like a viable business, in order to sell those shares. It is very much a short term fix. If it were as simple as Mr Green is suggesting then other people would be doing it, his predecessors would have done it. Celtic would be doing it. I’m afraid Mr Green is not the visionary that sees this massive income everyone else has missed. It simply isn’t there just now..
If Rangers want to keep trading they need a, to be in the SPL b, to be competing in Europe and c, to accept the reality of the size of the club and trade accordingly.
The problem is the fans don’t like it. They refuse to accept that they are not the biggest club in Scotland. To suggest it is heresy, it is the very root of all their problems.
chris shields (@chrisshields10) says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 13:59
===========================
I don’t think that stops them being compellable witnesses though, or does it.
Therefore the only way to protect that privacy is to hear the evidence in private. Whether it be about them, or being given by them.
Hypothetical Scenario.
Prominent ex player is called to give evidence. Player A is asked if he was paid through an EBT, he replies Yes. He is then asked was tax paid. He replies As far as I am aware. He is asked, what makes you think that. He replies, I was told it would be by a member of the board, and they gave me a letter saying if there was any tax due they would pay it. I thought no more about it.
His agent who attended the meetings corroborates this and says he also saw the letter and was party to the conversation.
This may not be particularly controversial, in and of itself. However take the parties concerned, and some of the people looking on, it may not be entirely sensible to make that person details known. It would definitely not be sensible to allow people to watch it happen, or to have it reported whilst he was giving that evidence.
The same goes for prominent staff at all levels.
chris shields (@chrisshields10) says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 13:59
a large part of the reason for an in camera hearing was the nature of the evidence. Although principaly dealing with RFC paying employees in an alledged illegal manner,those employees are not “on trial”.
=====================================
That is entirely correct. Where a tax appeal relies on the evidence of taxpayers other than the appellant, and where the evidence they give or the outcome of the appeal affects their personal tax position, then inevitably the hearing will be heard in private, and any personal details will be redacted in the published decision. That is just normal process, and quite right too, in my opinion.
However I don’t think that it will be too difficult to reconstruct a “who’s who” of the main players from the published decision. As regards the “200 page” stuff, I just don’t believe it. Can anyone find anything approaching a 200 page decision on the FTT website? Almost certainly not. The evidence is briefly summarised in the decision, not reported verbatim. It is a decision, not a transcript. But I might be wrong. We’ll see next week.
beatipacificiscotia says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 13:03
1 1 Rate This
HirsutePursuit @ 12.10
…
As far as I can see, we have to accept that old Rangers continue to exist in its shiny new wrappings. You can argue that this should not be the case, but you would be behind the times if you do. The situation is what it is. So on the basis that Rangers must accept the punishments coming, what must the SFA do to avoid UEFA throwing their weight around? UEFA really will apply their rules without fear or favour, and without losing a wink of sleep about it.
…
========================================
No.
I think you are confusing Lord Nimmo Smith’s convoluted description of a “Club” – for the purposes of SPL membership – and what it means to be an association football “club”.
Effectively LNS sees an SPL “Club” as the holders of a franchise. He has given Sevco the opportunity – as the new owners of the Rangers brand – an opportunity to make a representation at the commission’s hearing. But, LNS quite clearly recognises that Sevco – the association football “club” – cannot be punished for the sins of Rangers – the former association football “club”.
The SFA & UEFA recognise an association football “club” as the legal entity responsible for football activities.
Old Rangers are soon to be dead. That is the current situation and no amount of spin by the MSM and their cohorts can change that.
Sevco bought the assets of Rangers – including their intellectual property: name, badge, logos, etc. They can, as it stands, legally call themselves Rangers and play at Ibrox. That does not make Sevco the the old Rangers. It simply allows them to dress themselves up in the corpses clothes. Sevco will not accept any punishment for actions that occurred before they were in existence.
In any case, it is unlikely that the commission will apply any punishments. How can Rangers FC plc be punished when they no longer operate as a football club. What punishment can the commission realistically apply?
There will be no punishment to the club. All they will do, is adjust the results to reflect the involvement of ineligible players (0-3 in each relevant match) and correct the league placings as a consequence.
This is of no legitimate interest to Sevco’s Rangers – because they are a different club.
UEFA have no interest in “punishing” Sevco’s Rangers – because they are a different club.
carlislecelt says:
Sunday, October 21, 2012 at 12:14
Why if it is a Newco are CG and AMcC adamant that they will fight any stripping of titles? Surely nothing whatsoever to do with them.
————————————————————–
Because they are after the Oldco’s fan base … keep the bears onside and get their money. Simples.
i think Nimmo Smith will finally force the issue on oldco/newco continuity. He will give , I believe, the correct level of punishment for Rangers’ offences within the remit of the SPl – I suspect actually a sine die expulsion of Rangers. This will then force the hand of t’Rangers and CG to announce what we all know that they are a new club, to much wailing and gnashing of teeth but he will sell it – correctly- as the only option for the club’s survival.. Provision will be made by emergency resolution to allow the club to continue on its existing licence as not to allow it would lead to total collapse and we will be left with a new Rangers acknowledged by all in SFL 3 – clearly a breach of the 3 year rule but given just how many rule breaches have been ignored already, I suspect no-one will actually worry about that.
Much water to be passed over until then. But any attempts by the new rangers to claim any footballing continuity must lead to severe punishments for the existing club and whilst I believe that such punishments would be against all concepts of natural justice- they are a new club with new owners – they must stop pretending to be the old one. When the real implications of that bizarre holding on to some kind of “Rangers” entity hits then they will extremely reluctantly and quite possibly aggressively give it up.
They will still indeed be Rangers, in blue at Ibrox – but all will know and accept that they cannot be the same Rangers.
The real balls-up came for the switcheroo when they failed to enter SPL or SFL 1 – for those to happen they had to be a continuation of the old club – and the fix with the SPL and SFA was to do just that. Once they were put into SFL 3 a much more sane fix would have been to bring them in as a brand new club – but the shenanigans before had prepared for the existing licence to be transferred and they foolishly continued that.
Actually had they not been forced to re-enter at the lowest level and had instead been catapulted into the SPL then the consequences of the Nimmo Smith verdict on illegal payments would have been dire indeed. They could not then have finessed out in any way and would probably have had to fold.
UEFA feels that it has obeyed its rules here – it has recognised that SEVCO’s version of Rangers are a new club and denied them entry for 3 years on that basis. They may get interested again, however, when the registrations issue is adjudicated upon, possibly removing all of Rangers results and their co-efficient numbers from the Scottish co-efficient and investigating whether or not there was complicity within the Scottish footballing authorities whereupon fines/damages/suspensions may come into place. They may alternatively, as is their wont, choose to avoid involvement if at all possible.
The club is not in my opinion a phoenix as HMRC understands the term – unless evidence reveals links between the current owners and previous owners – such is the welter of secrecy surrounding the ownership of the club that such a scenario cannot be ruled out. I don’t think Charlie sitting in on negotiations is a phoenix issue -I do think, however, that it may be an issue for Lord Hodge investigating the conduct of the administration.