Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns

Avatar By

As a start, is there a remediation that bolsters integrity …

Comment on Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns by Smugas.

As a start, is there a remediation that bolsters integrity and doesn’t impact business ideals?

1/. Have a review, or are we not even allowed to do that?

2/. Have a review that catches them bang to rights, concludes they can’t do anything about it and asks us to move on.  Incredibly, this would still put us on a better footing generally than we are now.   That’s basically where Spiers is coming from today.  

3/.  Have a review, find them guilty seek to apply penalties against ‘the club’ and take it from there.  Their choice.  

4/. Just to be clear I have no issue with them having a review and either finding them innocent or having no case to answer.  Just as long as it is done honestly and transparently.  There will be no black hats for the pigeon murderer in this courtroom.  At least not in the first instance.  (Blackadder if you’re wondering).  

It just strikes me as odd priorities.  For a fraud that gained the club a £50MILLION advantage they’ve been charged 0.5% of it with no other punishment of note.  They then treated said advantage the way dogs treat lampposts and as a consequence went bust.  This, it transpired, turned into no more than a 3 year sabbatical with an optional 1 year lie in.  Meanwhile our authorities tell the 60% of us that paid our way to avoid upsetting them, even in a token manner that would make no odds to their future business anyway other than bolster their huffy crowds.

Smugas Also Commented

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns

re the indemnities.  Yes that is my take on them as well.  I’d also throw these two thoughts out there.  To be clear they’re based on nothing but natural cynicism!

1/.  The 5WA would have to have been ratified at the various board levels.  I seriously wonder if the indemnity (plural?) were?  Why?  See 2.

2/. The very existence of the indemnities sucked from the beginning.  Why?  Because Charlie agreed to the unquantified footballing fine of LNS.  An old, wily, very experienced liquidation operator like Charles Green, having seen off the Sevco challenge of Whyte and having finally received assurances that his ‘continuation’ IPO sales pitch would be allowed to fly then decided to risk it all by agreeing to a blank cheque to LNS?  Absolutely not a chance!  He needed two things.  The quantum (I doubt he ever realistically intended to pay anyway) and, crucially, the line in the sand that an indemnity  would offer.  

Again I question if the provision of these were ever sanctioned at the appropriate level, hence the indemnity’s appended nature.  

But thats just my opinion.

ps. Goosy.  JJ has an interesting take on Lawell’s elevation this morning.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
Agreed AJ but I’d add a couple of points.  Whatever it’s legal veracity LNS found Rangers guilty and fined them.  This was, I think, Duncan Fraser’s point that regardless of his surprise at the outcome that you can’t appeal on the basis that you simply don’t like the decision.  Fwiw I have to say I find the words (those that we have) of Rod McKenzie disingenuous at best in this regard.  He appears to have a reason why “we can’t” at every turn.  Has anyone thought to ask the man “if we can” at any point?  I would have thought that should have been his original remit.

Secondly, to me, there has to be a reason why the indemnity leaked by Charlotte and the logical counter one that one assumes exists are separate agreements rather than within the 5WA itself.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns

Correct, or to put it in RTC terms.

To win one (the BTC) by acknowledging the side letters in “proving” their non taxable nature was to lose the other (LNS) in acknowledging they existed at all.  And it is, sorry, should have been, just as inescapable the other way around.  

If, miraculously, they did somehow escape meaningful punishment in both then surely the “guards” had to go for rank incompetence for allowing such a situation to occur?  What was their purpose if it was not to guard against just such a distortion?  For all three elements to ask us to carry on as if nothing has happened is just taking the piss!

Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  

About the author