In the aftermath of the recent election and whilst those of us who voted one way are still hoping that our way continues to count, the horse trading has begun. No matter your politics, the fact that a party wholly representing one part of the United Kingdom is suddenly having such a massive influence, coupled with a lack of detail in the public domain over their negotiations, causes people some nervousness; because of the nature of the DUP, for some they claim it terrifies them.
Can we imagine if football was run that way? Can we imagine if it wasn’t?
Having people who have one focus deliberating and influencing your life has always been an issue at the core of the United Kingdom. Proud Scots do not like the power of the English, some English have begun to resent the growing independence of the Scots, the Welsh have turned out to have their own independence and as for the Irish; the Trouble has always never been far behind.
The recognised method of dealing with these issues has now become to allow, where possible, organisations within the domain of the domicile to grow on their own. For some it sows the seeds of an increasing independence as the locals realise they can do it for themselves. It also does, though ensure the organisation is close to its own people and is truly representative of them.
In Scotland, and throughout the last election, the big two – Conservative and Labour parties – have suffered under the accusations of being a “branch office” of their London centric big sister. It has led to people making choices based on the assumption that, at times, neither of the leaders up here have autonomy. When there are policies that will be unpopular in Scotland, they say, the high heid yins in Edinburgh have no choice but to toe the party line.
We do not like that thought.
Nor should we.
I suggested that football has a similar issue. And so. It does…
The views and opinions of the Scottish fans who last Saturday threw up their hands in joy and held their heads in despair all within 90 seconds or so suffer from that lack of representation. As deals are done in secret and “announcements” made over innovations and changes they are collectively silent through the funded organisation established to represent them; at best that organ is muted.
Never has it been more important for the Scottish football fan to feel the importance of their view being heard. Never has it been more important as Project Brave is being undertaken, chairmen are being fined £3,000 for having a bet, we look as though we are going to miss out on another World Cup, expansion of our cup competitions is growing apace, play offs and promotions have delivered their verdicts and handed their budgets to managers who bemoaned last year it was hard, that one of our two giant clubs seems unable to keep itself out of the court room whilst supplying the accused, the defence lawyer, the pantomime villain and a circus or at least two premiership clubs appear to be on the verge of administration.
Supporters Direct – Undemocratic?
The time has come to ensure that the voice of the footballing nation does not come from around the Isles but around the corner. Whilst the work of Supporters Direct has brought a great deal of support and aid to a number of clubs and supporters groups, the fans need something that is much more than a branch office of a bigger organisation.
In the recent past, SD have seemingly been forced to be more visible but let us not be fooled, if you are an ordinary fan, SD have no place for you. You cannot join, you cannot vote, and you cannot influence; so there is not much point. Building a democratic and fair vocal chord for Scottish football fans needs commitment from the bottom up to engage, enlist and enrich the chorus and chanting of disapproval or support for Scottish football.
That’s why I am in the SFSA – isn’t it time for the Scottish Government to take the bull, grasp the thistle and make the clear choice of removing money going all the way to London and giving it to a fans based organisation that represents them here in Scotland?
We think so… don’t you?
Join the SFSA today! It’s free
jimboJune 18, 2017 at 22:48
I remember AJ saying a few days ago that he might not always remember exact details (like Auldheid & EJ et. al.) me even more so.
One thing I seem to remember is that long before 30 June Rangers legal/ financial advisors? told them they were in shit street with the wee tax case, they accepted that apparently. The side letters were the killer. HMRC had already won a similar case – Aberdeen Asset Management?
God only knows how Regan thought this had no bearing, he seemed to believe something along the lines that negotiations were on going. They weren’t, not even a payment plan nor size of interest/ punishment payments. They were due. Full stop.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I believe it has now been established beyond doubt that the liability arising from the Wee Tax Case was due and payable at the key UEFA dates.
Whyte and Grier appear to have muddied the waters by suggesting to the SFA that they were in negotiations with HMRC over it. Given that leading tax counsel had already opined that RFC should cough up the only “negotiation” available and acceptable to HMRC was how it was going to be paid.
Regan was fully aware of this, as evidenced by the press release he wanted to issue regarding the UEFA licence which he ran by Whyte for approval. Whyte thought he was an idiot to even contemplate releasing it because it drew attention to the whole issue and more or less suggested something was being covered up.
BOGS DOLLOXJUNE 19, 2017 at 00:11
This is something that shows me that, at the very least, Regan has something to fear from either the Murray or the Whyte administrations, something he feels will be revealed by one, or both, administrations should he speak out over this undoubted peice of football ‘fraud’. For why wouldn’t he, at the very least, make a statement to the effect that the Rangers board, at both reporting dates, lied to the SFA to obtain a European licence? Why isn’t he trying to distance himself, and the SFA, from this blatant, deliberate, deception?
It is as plain as the nose on his face that he was either in cahoots with them, or they made a ‘fraudulent’ application for the licence, and it has to be both administrations who made the ‘fraudulent’ claims, with Whyte innocent of the original lie at 31 March!
If Regan has only just realised, as a result of the evidence given in the Whyte case, that he (the SFA) was undoubtedly duped, then any honest and decent man would be spitting bullets, determined that the blame should be publicly placed at the door of the perpetrators of that deception, regardless of whether or not it’s too late to exact retribution on those perpetrators.
Funny how he’s so quick to condemn Whyte, and Whyte alone, on other matters!
Just a wee thought on why there is this silence over this major crime against Scottish football: could Regan be afraid of the impact it might have on the big lie?
Well the dreaded match between Linfield FC & Celtic on 11/12 July has just taken a step closer. Celtic will play the winner of the first qualifier between Linfield & S.P. La Fiorita. I think I spooked it last night.
To make matters worse Linfield are at home if they win.
Regan has two choices before resigning for the same crimes,lying.
1. Claim like DM to have been duped and claim he thought all was above board when issuing the licence, and only finding this out after the High Court trial; resign for the error of not following procedures.
“But Regan revealed the SFA have been in dialogue with Celtic on this issue for the past three years and insisted the governing body had acted entirely in accordance with the rules.”
2. Accept all is above board and since you claim the club who has led to your error is the same club pursue them for lying about taxes, before you resign.
The SFA banned Whyte from Scottish football for life in April 2012 and fined him £200,000, but the money has never been received. Whyte said at the time: “I couldn’t care less. It makes no difference to my life whatsoever – and good luck collecting the money.”
But Regan claims the SFA could now take legal action to pursue the money.
“That will be something we take advice on and, should the opportunity present itself, we would definitely consider that,” he said.
The SFA have authority to recover money from clubs if directors do not pay, is this the same rangers
3. Close the door behind you when leaving you are a liar Mr regan and you have been caught like Jim Farry your predecessor
jimbo June 19, 2017 at 11:39
Well the dreaded match between Linfield FC & Celtic on 11/12 July has just taken a step closer. Celtic will play the winner of the first qualifier between Linfield & S.P. La Fiorita. I think I spooked it last night.
To make matters worse Linfield are at home if they win.
===========================
Hearts are also in Belfast to play Linfield in a friendly on the Saturday before the CL tie.
Easyjambo,
It’s the timing of the Celtic tie that worries me. Tensions can be very high on the 11th. & 12th. How The PSNI could cope with their massive duties re. the marches, bonfires keeping two tribes apart and then deal with this football match beats me. Apparently Linfield FC as a club have been making efforts to move on from sectarianism but I fear many people who never visit Windsor Park will latch on to cause trouble. I suspect they might not like the thought of this tie going ahead as it stands anymore than Celtic will.
I honestly hope the two clubs get together and approach UEFA with a solution. For the safety of people something should be done to limit the potential madness.
Hearts being a week before should be fine, besides I’m not aware of any underlying tensions in the two supports. It’s a friendly I presume? No problem I predict!
“…That’s why I am in the SFSA – isn’t it time for the Scottish Government to take the bull, grasp the thistle and make the clear choice of removing money going all the way to London and giving it to a fans based organisation that represents them here in Scotland?…”
Good effort DS.
As the major stakeholders in the Scottish game, it is nothing short of shameful that the fans have no real influence – and are typically not even engaged in any meaningful or formal way.
But those who run Scottish football don’t seem do shame.
IMO, the SD organisation has shown in the past to be ineffective, and rather selective about what it chooses to speak up about.
I had already joined the SSFA in the hope it could make things happen.
And whilst challenging the funding of SD, the big stick that the Scottish government does retain is to threaten withdrawal of all public monies to the SFA if they continue to ignore the fans.
We have seen that the politicians don’t really want to get involved – probably for self-interest reasons – but the SFA / SPFL / the clubs are not going to change their behaviour towards the fans without some external prompting / financial threats, IMO.
Testing one two three
STEVIEBCJUNE 19, 2017 at 16:44
We have seen that the politicians don’t really want to get involved – probably for self-interest reasons – but the SFA / SPFL / the clubs are not going to change their behaviour towards the fans without some external prompting / financial threats, IMO.
————
Only sometimes they don’t want to get involved,only sometimes.Other times,ah well.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2102102/Rangers-need-survive-Scottish-football-says-Alex-Salmond.html
Just pinged off an email – a la JC – to a Luxembourg daily newspaper, [couldn’t forward to FC Progres email account / “Undeliverable”.]
Just a random choice of paper, and informing them of TRFC’s suspect involvement in the Europa Cup qualifiers.
And what I just don’t get: this scenario reminds me of my youth, when our team manager was aware that an opposition team had a ‘ringer’.
He didn’t say anything, until we lost a cup game against them.
He then complained to the League administrators, and we were awarded a win.
Didn’t feel right then – and as there is money involved with the Europa Cup, you would ‘absolutely’ expect FC Progres to do the same ?
More difficulties for the SFA / Regan ahead…?
The views and opinions of the Scottish fans who last Saturday threw up their hands in joy and held their heads in despair all within 90 seconds or so suffer from that lack of representation. As deals are done in secret and “announcements” made over innovations and changes they are collectively silent through the funded organisation established to represent them; at best that organ is muted.
From the very good blog above.
And something i was reading up on from Mr Regan in 2014.
Regan said: “You can never be complacent in anything. Football relies on everyone involved in it being honest, transparent up-front and anything that jeopardies that has to be dealt with.
Regan will be protected whist there is a shilling to be made. What others know about Regan will soon be exposed there is a reason why people return to scenes of crime.
CLUSTER ONEJUNE 19, 2017 at 17:56 Only sometimes they don’t want to get involved,only sometimes.Other times,ah well.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2102102/Rangers-need-survive-Scottish-football-says-Alex-Salmond.html
=====================
This is what’s puzzling me about this thread. Can anyone show a single shred of evidence that anyone within the Scottish Government is willing to do the right thing. I have had previous comms with my MSP in 2012, the Sports Minister in 2012, and indeed the First Minister in 2012. The golden thread through all of their replies is Scottish football needs a strong Rangers. They seemed not interested in the slightest about tax avoidance or evasion, even though the payment of tax in full and on time helps to underpin our society. Why does anyone think they will be of a different view now? Why does anyone think they would hold the SFA to account when they themselves are clearly aligned with how the SFA think?
In my view the Scottish Government are a massive part of the problem, not a solution.
I know its a long time ago But does anyone know
When Rangers went through the league undefeated in 1899/96 was it recognised by a special award given by the League body?
GoosyGoosy, the 1898/99 league champions won all 18 of their games – maybe Mr McRae, who surely still lives in the century before last, deemed that more worthy of formal recognition than the exploits of the 2016-17 undefeated league winners? If there was formal recognition of this achievement at the time, I’m sure that TRFC or RIFC or Alastair Johnston would have issued a statement in May reminding all interested football supporters of RFC’s unique achievement.
http://www.fitbastats.com/rangers/team_results_season.php?from=117&competition=0&update=Update
Great web site for past results in Scotland
Interesting development;
“Barclays and four former bosses, including ex chief executive John Varley, are charged with fraud in first criminal prosecutions relating to 2008 financial crisis…”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4620432/Barclays-ex-boss-John-Varley-four-charged-fraud.html
========================
Wee Craigy has fired the starting pistol
https://twitter.com/Heavidor/status/877211052261478400
http://www.hendersonandjones.com/
Corrupt officialJune 20, 2017 at 18:40
Maybe explains the spending spree, spending the ST money before Craigy/the litigants can get their hands on it!
PS only joking, I think
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 20, 2017 at 18:51
How much is wee Craigy into them for Ally?..The quantum appears to have been ever changing. There must be a point where litigation is not worth the financial risks of failure.
I see that Mark Allen has been appointed Director Of Football at Ibrox. He was Manchester City’s Academy director for the past seven years.
Maybe someone wiser than me can point to a wealth of talent coming through the Man City youth system in recent times, but I can only recall that club throwing large wedges of money at an array of foreign imports.
Looks like he’ll fit in well then, although Man City had the added advantage of genuinely having shedloads of money to fritter away.
Not so much Sheikh Mansour as Shake MaHaun at Ibrox.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40345501
GOOSYGOOSYJUNE 20, 2017 at 10:35 16 Votes
I know its a long time ago But does anyone knowWhen Rangers went through the league undefeated in 1899/96 was it recognised by a special award given by the League body?
—————–
Can’t find any special award, but i did find this(did a pic instead of typing)
The first part gave me a chuckle.old and new
Corrupt officialJune 20, 2017 at 19:16
ALLYJAMBOJUNE 20, 2017 at 18:51 How much is wee Craigy into them for Ally?..The quantum appears to have been ever changing. There must be a point where litigation is not worth the financial risks of failure.
______________________
Not got a clue what it’s all about, or how much is involved, but anything that keeps this circus going is very welcome
But…
I think what’s happened is that Craigy sold his rights to sue RIFC/TRFC over the original sale of RFC’s basket of assets to some lot, then that lot sold it to another lot…and now this latest lot are looking to cash in their chips. I think this is the scenario that came to light a wee while ago whereby Sevco (Scotland)/TRFC’s assets should belong to Sevco 5088/Whyte (but the rights to sue are now owned by this latest lot) moving on to the next stage! Confused? Well just be grateful your club’s not involved!
I’d imagine it’s been the case that the litigants had to await the result of the Craig Whyte fraud trial, and now he’s innocent, it probably casts a different light/more favourable light, in his favour, on what happened between him and Charles Green. It might even be possible that it’ll be easier to prove Whyte was defrauded by Green/Sevco(Scotland/TRFC in a civil case than it was for the Crown in the criminal trial.
On the other hand, it might all just peter out into nothing.
Just a thought. Is it the Club assets or the Company assets which CW wants back? Or maybe it’s both?
I can understand the issue with Sevco Scotland being allowed the buy the assets of Rangers (IL) when it was Sevco 5088 which had been granted that right. I think that was clearly a con, particularly when those assets were sold at such a cut rate. Did Green effectively pay nothing (if he had got the prize money etc which was allegedly part of the deal) and then revalue the assets up by tens of millions. I can see why Whyte, or people he sold the right to might want some form of compensation as the right was effectively stolen from him.
I do not understand the bit about the floating charge. If the person who holds the floating charge is not owed money then what difference does it make. They have a security covering no debt.
Things may get very interesting, and it certainly won’t help the current club raising funds if they find themselves having to do that in the not too distant future. Not if there remains doubt over the true ownership of the assets.
Ex Ludo June 20, 2017 at 19:51
Just a thought. Is it the Club assets or the Company assets which CW wants back? Or maybe it’s both?
===========================
I suspect that even Whyte wants nothing more to do with RFC in any form.
Here’s the latest from the BDO Creditors report published last week.
EASYJAMBOJUNE 20, 2017 at 19:58
As such, on receipt of the interlocutor from the Court, Wavetower/HJL will have 28 days to submit a further claim should they choose to do so. If a claim is submitted then the Joint Liquidators should be able to adjudicate it under the provisions of the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986, as they apply to unsecured creditors.
—————–
Would this latest move be part of that 28 day period?
Again the precise mechanics of the floating charge, whoever owns it now, are dictated by the way the original Ticketus funds were forwarded. I confess following the trial outcome I’ve completely lost track of how that was done.
Floating charge
https://loveandgarbage.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/craig-whyte-and-the-floating-charge/
The floating charge was signed by Wee Craigy, Iain Shanks (BoS) and Rangers(I.L.) CFO, Donald McIntyre.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/exclusive-document-reveals-craig-whyte-10574238
https://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/rangers-security-charge-change-11_11.pdf
SMUGAS
JUNE 21, 2017 at 08:44
============================
From the end of April, I’m not sure if there are any updates.
https://www.bdo.co.uk/getmedia/122bd9c6-9902-4761-a124-58b86ffc7b70/RFC-Progress-report-to-30-April-2017.pdf.aspx
Dividend Prospects
Creditors were previously advised that the Joint Liquidators were in a position to pay a firstdividend to creditors last summer and the Committee had previously approved the JointLiquidators’ proposed Scheme of Division.
The most recent report dated 8 December 2016 gives a full background to the delays that havebeen caused to the payment by the Joint Liquidators of this first dividend to creditors since havingbeen put on notice of a potential claim by, initially, solicitors representing Law Financial Limited (acompany which is 100% owned by Worthington Group, and of which Craig Whyte was a formerdirector) and, latterly, The Rangers FC Group Limited (a company previously known as WavetowerLimited, “Wavetower”).
As the alleged Wavetower claim of c£3.5m purports to be secured, the Joint Liquidators have beenliaising with their legal team to understand what further steps are required.
Our legal team have advised that as the Wavetower claim has been rejected without appeal, itwould be able to submit yet a further claim on the basis of a purported assigned floating charge.Therefore, Wavetower can continue to frustrate the distribution to unsecured creditors through thethreat of submission of further claims.
With the Committee’s approval, the Joint Liquidators sought directions from the Court on therejection procedure for the Wavetower claim, with a view to bringing the matter to a final conclusion. A note in this regard was lodged and served on Wavetower, who had until 7 April 2017 to lodge answers.
Wavetower did not lodge answers by 10 April 2017 and a hearing was therefore scheduled for 30May 2017 at which the Joint Liquidators intended to seek further directions. Shortly prior to thedirections hearing, the Joint Liquidators received notice that Wavetower’s claim had been assignedto Henderson & Jones Limited (“HJL”) , a specialist purchaser of claims and litigation frominsolvent companies.
At the hearing on 31 May 2017, at which Wavetower/HJL were both represented and during whichthey advanced arguments attempting to stay the proceedings we are pleased to advise that theCourt agreed with all aspects of the directions application made by the Joint Liquidators’ Counsel.As such, on receipt of the interlocutor from the Court, Wavetower/HJL will have 28 days to submita further claim should they choose to do so. If a claim is submitted then the Joint Liquidatorsshould be able to adjudicate it under the provisions of the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986, as theyapply to unsecured creditors.
Any other creditor who is yet to make a claim in this matter is invited to do so on the attachedclaim form at appendix 3.
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
JUNE 21, 2017 at 09:33
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/exclusive-document-reveals-craig-whyte-10574238
=====================================
It really is intriguing.
When did “exclusive” change it’s meaning to “something other people told you years ago”.
I think I’m right in saying that Rangers provided Wavetower with the loan used to buy the debt in the first place. So whilst Rangers owed money to Wavetower, Wavetower also owed money to Rangers.
If I borrow £250,000 and buy a house with it the value of my assets may raise by £250,000 but that does not mean my personal wealth rose by that amount.
Exactly. For the financial assistance charge to fall as it did I understand the key distinction is the Ticketus monies had to go to Rangers (on the Friday) who then lent it to CW/Wavetower (on the Monday) who lent it back to Rangers who used it to repay the HBoS debt. HBoS used said repayment to release the Floating charge to CW. Ordinarily, but banned by Finacial Assistance rules Ticketus would have given the money directly to CW who used it to repay HBoS and essentially buy the Floating Charge without involving Rangers per se.
Where the disconnect from the obvious circle incorporating ‘Rangers’ comes is when Ticketus discovered post administration that they had no recourse to Rangers for their debt (it appears they thought they did). To mitigate this risk however they had also insisted CW took out a personal guarantee for the funding (funding that required to be to ‘Rangers’ remember) which, when liquidation occurred they activated and subsequently bankrupted CW on.
Two points are key.
1/ CW bankrupted himself to repay Rangers debts. That’s very generous of him.
2/ The substantial but diminishing creditors pot is nothing to do with the Ticketus funds per se, rather it stems from the Withey/Collier Bristow insurance payout. I’m surprised this hasn’t received greater coverage since, apparently, CW did nothing wrong in advancing the original funds to Rangers in the first place.
It looks as if TRFCG is due to be dissolved next week, despite H&J being appointed as directors last week. There is a post-dated notice on the Companies House website.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07380537/filing-history
27 Jun 2017 GAZ2
Final Gazette dissolved via compulsory strike-off
This document is being processed and will be available in 5 days.
If H&J has indeed purchased the rights to the claim against RFC (2012) assets, then I don’t see why they would need TRFCG to survive. The alternative way of doing it would have been for H&J to have bought the company, TRFCG, but I’d guess that would be a riskier course of action as it would have left the “company” open to other claims.
Corrupt officialJune 21, 2017 at 09:42
https://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/rangers-security-charge-change-11_11.pdf
_________________
Yup, another five or six year old ‘exclusive’ from Jackson.
Discussions on that floating charge have ‘floated’ around the blogosphere for a number of years, with the implications for TRFC speculated upon quite often. An aspect Jackson has avoided in this piece.
His ‘exclusive’ is nothing more than a PR piece to keep dumping the blame on Whyte and Lloyds Bank rather than where it really belongs; with Murray and his BofS cronies. Interestingly it comes immediately after the online revelations of the involvement of Henderson and Jones who may well be taking this floating charge to court with them!
I think the following passage lets us see what the true purpose of Jackson’s not so exclusive ‘exclusive’ was really about:
‘The assignation agreement was signed by Ian Shanks on behalf of the Bank of Scotland, who are part of Lloyds Group.During Whyte’s fraud trial, the court heard how Shanks and Lloyds were desperate to get the club’s debt cleared as part of Project Charlotte, Lloyds’ plan to flog ailing Murray Group companies who owed them “hundreds of millions of pounds”.’
No mention of David Murray, the one man who benefitted, massively, from the sale of Rangers to Whyte – in fact, probably the only person to benefit – as revealed in the Whyte trial!
Preparation (for what lies ahead) rather than revelation from Jackson?
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 21, 2017 at 09:54
CORRUPT OFFICIALJUNE 21, 2017 at 09:33 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/exclusive-document-reveals-craig-whyte-10574238=====================================
It really is intriguing.
When did “exclusive” change it’s meaning to “something other people told you years ago”.
———————————————————————————————————–
I was laughing at that myself, as I well recall (If not the exact details) the conversations surrounding the floating charge on Paul McConvilles site years ago.
I also noticed how libellous the Daily Mason was in accusing him of crimes he has recently been found not guilty of……..Ye’d think there was an agenda or sumthin’.
On the surface, it doesn’t look like an easy (or quick) fix for the legal bods to conclude on, but in hindsight, with all the lawyers involved in this, each found a clever way around their particular wee part of the jig-saw without ever looking (apparently) at the over-all cover picture on the box.
Something Paul was exceptional at….. Ye’d think they could all deduce, what Paul could deduce or sumthin’
It seems ironic that although mud flies, none of it has stuck to the lawyers involved, without whose invaluable skills, the sale of the club, would not have been possible.
I don’t think I am being unreasonable to suggest that to get the deal over the line, the legals involved were as “friendly” as the bank that threw cash at them.
I have said before, that there wasn’t just the buyer and vendor involved in this deal, but also those who were owed. Those owed, all had a trump card giving them a certain volume of voice. Some spoke louder than others.
As it stands, wee Craigy’s voice was muted by Duff & Phelps, (and ultimately the courts) on a false premise (i.e, an illegal take-over).
Foot shootin’ at it’s very best. …..Rather like LNS…..Ye’d think it was on purpose, or sumthin’
Smugas June 21, 2017 at 10:45
===================
Findlay raised two defences to the Financial Assistance charge. 1) That Whyte was entitled to do so as owner of the club on 6 May 2011, and 2) That the “assistance” provided was allowed in law, as it was in the interests of the club for the debt to be repaid, and eliminating the interest charged.
What the Crown failed to explore, was that the cost of repaying Ticketus, in terms of future ST revenues, was in reality at a higher rate of interest that would have been payable to Lloyds, thus didn’t benefit the club.
You also have to remember that this was the first Financial Assistance charge in Scotland that had been determined by a jury. Findlay was able to create sufficient “reasonable doubt” in the jury’s mind that a majority “not guilty” verdict was achieved.
I note the new Director of Football down Govan way previously headed up the Man City Academy that was fined by the Premier League £300k in May for tapping up young academy players and had also previously been reported to Fifa for ‘trafficking’ a young player in 2016.
Clearly not one who respects the rules that apply to others. He will fit right in at Ibrox.
Do DoF’s have to pass the fit and proper sniff test. 🙂
HomunculusJune 21, 2017 at 09:54″I think I’m right in saying that Rangers provided Wavetower with the loan used to buy the debt in the first place. So whilst Rangers owed money to Wavetower, Wavetower also owed money to Rangers.”
Wavetower owe Rangers who owe Wavetower who owe Ticket Us.
Aye owe,Aye owe,Aye frauding as we go
Smugas
June 21, 2017 at 10:45
Exactly. For the financial assistance charge to fall as it did I understand the key distinction is the Ticketus monies had to go to Rangers (on the Friday) who then lent it to CW/Wavetower (on the Monday) who lent it back to Rangers who used it to repay the HBoS debt. HBoS used said repayment to release the Floating charge to CW. Ordinarily, but banned by Finacial Assistance rules Ticketus would have given the money directly to CW who used it to repay HBoS and essentially buy the Floating Charge without involving Rangers per se.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Channelling the money from Ticketus to Wavetower(CW) was not banned by Financial Assistance rules. The asset against which the advance was being made (i.e. the seats at Ibrox) was owned by Rangers. Therefore, the advance went to Rangers. Rangers then lent the money on to Wavetower.
In a seperate transaction Wavetower were assigned (there was no release) the floating charge held by HBOS in return for Wavetower paying off the Rangers loan to HBOS.
Therefore, within Wavetower two things exist. A floating charge over the assets of Rangers together with a loan to Rangers and a loan from Rangers. The two are legally distinct notwithstanding the fact that they are of equal value and in accounting terms can be “netted off” against each other.
So why do it, if on the face of it, the assets of Wavetower are not increased? Is the answer not that the floating charge has greater value than the loan to Rangers because it is enforceable against ALL of the Rangers assets?
WOTTPI
JUNE 21, 2017 at 11:54
I note the new Director of Football down Govan way previously headed up the Man City Academy that was fined by the Premier League £300k in May for tapping up young academy players…
==================
Ahhh, maybe it makes sense now ?
Was struggling to understand why a 50-something, senior manager of a very wealthy club – which apparently has the resources to become a Euro giant – decided to chuck it in for a relatively small club, which has been continuously close to the breadline since its inception 5 years ago ?
And the club management style is ‘permanent firefighting’.
Was the guy on gardening leave ?
Or is he a closet RRM ?
I think we should be told!
From the DR…
“Rangers agree one-year deal with Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct allowing fans to buy strips again
It is understood a previous seven year contract has been ripped up and both parties have agreed on a new one-year agreement…”
StevieBC June 21, 2017 at 16:27
From the DR…
“Rangers agree one-year deal with Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct allowing fans to buy strips again It is understood a previous seven year contract has been ripped up and both parties have agreed on a new one-year agreement…”
============================
There’s nothing in the statement about it being a one year agreement, only that there is no fixed term.
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-77
Reading between the lines of some of the statement:
“The financial arrangements between the parties are transformed. TRFC will now receive by far the majority of net profits from the retail operations at the Megastore and Webstore together with an equal share of all net profits from sales through SD”.
Rangers get increased profits from sales at the Megastore and their Webstore – (up from 51%), but that the profit from SD store sales is shared as before. SD also continue to make profits from the sourcing, manufacture and supply of goods.
“TRFC will also obtain a priority dividend on the winding up of RRL”.
I assume that means that they will receive an advance (not enhanced) payment of their share of the dividend due on winding up RRL which might help their short term cash flow
“TRFC and SD hope that the new arrangements will be long standing but there is no longer a fixed commitment on that front. We will rely on our combined commercial performance and drive to cement the relationship going forward”.
I don’t read that as being a one year deal as is being reported on some platforms, e.g it could easily be a one year rolling contract or termination at a year’s notice.
It all seems a huge waste of revenue potential over the last three years, with boycotts, legal action etc., only to find that the club can do business with their bogey man after all.
EASYJAMBO
JUNE 21, 2017 at 16:53
StevieBC June 21, 2017 at 16:27 From the DR… “Rangers agree one-year deal with Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct allowing fans to buy strips again It is understood a previous seven year contract has been ripped up and both parties have agreed on a new one-year agreement…” ============================ There’s nothing in the statement about it being a one year agreement, only that there is no fixed term.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
IMO
Since SD had the upper hand before the court case was resolved the final deal must have benefitted SD more than it benefitted TRFC
Therefore it is very likely that
This statement was written by SD
Meaning
SD control over the content of this statement was imposed on TRFC
This means
SD decided not only what the statement said
SD decided what the statement did not say
For example
Is there a formula which relates the cost of making a shirt to the wholesale cost to TRFC of buying a shirt?
i.e.
Can SD simply declare the wholesale price at which a shirt has to be bought or is this a negotiable item?Remembering that SD would control both the wholesale AND retail price
If not
SD will end up making more money per shirt than previously by simply raising the wholesale price of each shirt sold
And
The Bears will end up paying more for a shirt than they did previously
Other unanswered questions
Will SD regain control of the IP as part of this deal?
When does the new contract take effect?
Is it immediately?
Or upon liquidation of RR Ltd?
What has been included to cover “lost” profit to SD for the residual period of the current contract?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
You could go on and on speculating about what’s included and excluded in this deal
Much better to assume
A real mega millionaire like MA will gain more from this deal than a mini millionaire like DCK
And
The prospect of losing a £5m court case forced TRFC to seek the only route open to them
Which was
Surrender to SD demands
And
Make the fans pay for the incompetence of DCK in his handling of MA
Was it a case of we can’t pay for unsold stock.So let’s do a deal that let’s the fans buy last years strip at this years price. that will give SD the money they would have received for unsold stock.
or am i way off course?
and does this bring to an end the court case with king and SD?
I see Rangers also announced today that even more soft loans have been provided by Directors, which have been used to fund recent signings. Assuming this is true, then how does it fit into the so called break even monitoring period they are allegedly now under with UEFA. My suspicions on this have been increased even further. In the absence of any transparency from the SFA, what triggers break even monitoring by UEFA? Do the SFA have to actually inform UEFA it is required, and do UEFA actually rely on member associations being up front about it? I hope not.
On another note I thought last summer could not be surpassed in terms of the media providing a feelgood factor for all things Ibrox related, but once again I’m wrong. Players for the most part previously unknown to the media, are now spoken of in very favourable terms as if they are players the media have been watching for a period of time. The Daily Record have today handed a Rangers blogger a platform to tell how the league is in the bag for next season, as well as claiming a ‘huge victory’ for King over Ashley. Meanwhile they are almost beside themselves at the prospect of Celtic having to travel to Belfast and face Linfield at the peak of Loyalist celebrations. In my view neither Celtic players or staff could possibly be safe in such an environment and I think the club would be crazy to officially sell away tickets for such a tie. I would rather the media showed some genuine concern over the very real safety risks involved. Then again to do that they would have to be genuinely concerned in the first place.
SMUGAS
JUNE 21, 2017 at 10:45
Exactly. For the financial assistance charge to fall as it did I understand the key distinction is the Ticketus monies had to go to Rangers (on the Friday) who then lent it to CW/Wavetower (on the Monday) who lent it back to Rangers who used it to repay the HBoS debt.
=================================
That is not my understanding of how it happened.
I thought Rangers sold the tickets to Ticketus. Rangers then provided the loan to Wavetower. Wavetower then paid the bank to have the loan and associated floating charge assigned to them.
So Rangers now owed the money to Wavetower, rather than the bank and Whyte told the fans that the club had no “external debt”
They seem to like the idea of having no debt, whilst owing millions of pounds to the people who own their shares.
Anyway, I still think the claim makes no sense if Wavetower owed Rangers and Rangers owed Wavetower. If however there were administration charges and interest in one direction that might be a different story. If Rangers owed Wavetower more than Wavetower owed Rangers then there might be the grounds for a claim.
upthehoops June 21, 2017 at 18:49
I see Rangers also announced today that even more soft loans have been provided by Directors, which have been used to fund recent signings. Assuming this is true, then how does it fit into the so called break even monitoring period they are allegedly now under with UEFA. My suspicions on this have been increased even further. In the absence of any transparency from the SFA, what triggers break even monitoring by UEFA? Do the SFA have to actually inform UEFA it is required, and do UEFA actually rely on member associations being up front about it? I hope not.
==============================
Do you have a link to the loan announcement?
EJ @ 1918:
DCK clearly said it during a filmed sequence on the STV News At Six. He said that he, T3Bs & others had provided loans for signings because they had to, simply to be competitive.
John McKay also said that TRFC had ‘ripped up’ the SD deal. No John, they didn’t. Mike Edwards (Senior News Correspondent!) reckons DCK is the ‘owner’ of the club. No Mike, he isn’t.
BTW, in the televised segment of the interview, DCK’s most used word was ‘club’. I find that strange, considering he’s not a director of TRFC.
Disclaimer: I watch it because my wife watches it. Domestic harmony imperative, if you get my drift…
Jingso.Jimsie June 21, 2017 at 19:30
=======================
Thanks – Got it from the RTV interview.
EASYJAMBOJUNE 21, 2017 at 19:18 Do you have a link to the loan announcement?
==============================
I read it here E.J. Statement is attributed to King.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40358177
EASYJAMBO
JUNE 21, 2017 at 17:26
========================================
SD, how do we get them to buy the kit.
RFC, we need to make it look like you have backed down, King won and the deal is totally re-structured in our favour.
SD, so if we tell them that RFC are getting much more from the deal, and Dave King says it they will buy loads of stuff from me.
RFC, absolutely, you will make a fortune. However we don’t tell them that you still make all of the money from producing the stuff and charging us for it. Then get a cut of the profit when we sell it to them. We tell them we are getting a much better deal from the sale to them, they won’t think about the rest of it.
SD, will they actually wear that.
RFC, they will if Dave King makes the announcement.
SD, coolio.
upthehoops June 21, 2017 at 19:33
=================
Thanks UTH. The loans were made in the last couple of days, and I see the article mentions that the Warburton action appears to be dead.
Rangers chairman Dave King also revealed he and other shareholders – including Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor – have provided additional funding to the club in recent weeks in the form of interest-free loans.
Just how much are they into at this point in loans? and will more be needed if euro exit early. when do they want paid back?
EASYJAMBOJUNE 21, 2017 at 19:32
Jingso.Jimsie June 21, 2017 at 19:30=======================Thanks – Got it from the RTV interview.
——————————————————————–
Would that be a concert party loan then EJ?…..I wonder what the takeover panel will make of that?
As I mentioned a while back 7p in the pound was not too bad even if DK thought it was terrible, he knows nothing of retailing:
“Average profit margin by industryThe retail clothing industry had an average gross profit margin of 48.46 percent in 2009 according to Butler Consultants. However, by the time you add up all the expenses involved in operating retail clothing stores, the average net profit margin is only 7.98 percent.”What Is a Reasonable Profit Margin? | Chron.comsmallbusiness.chron.com/reasonable-profit-margin-17989.html
I doubt very much if things have changed much since 2009. I know nothing of cost & profit margins in on-line sales.
There are big profits made along the way by the manufacturers then the wholesalers (in this case SD). So big Mike gets two bites of the cherry, as the wholesaler and distributer and then as a retailer in his stores. Although he will only get 50% of the net profit in his stores. But with economies of scale in a retail division the size of SD, he might achieve better than 50% of 7.98p in the pound.
Big mike could simply add £5 or £10 on to the wholesale price of the tops and make a fortune especially if sales go through the roof relative to where they are now.
I have to say it sounds a win win situation to me.
JIMBO
JUNE 21, 2017 at 20:08
========================
Win /win / win if the support decide to buy the kit, Jimbo.
I am sure there are a few young Rangers’ supporters who would really like a team shirt but their parents weren’t buying it because of the Ashley situation.
CLUSTER ONEJUNE 21, 2017 at 19:57 Rangers chairman Dave King also revealed he and other shareholders – including Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor – have provided additional funding to the club in recent weeks in the form of interest-free loans.Just how much are they into at this point in loans? and will more be needed if euro exit early. when do they want paid back?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
A lateral thought
What if
This latest set of soft loans are secured against future shirt sales income over and above the sales income achieved last year?
Meaning
New money from additional shirt sales arising from the SD deal is used to repay soft loans paid upfront in order to buy star players?
A kind of poor mans Ticketus deal?
With all the extra money coming from the increased number of shirts bought this year compared with last year
…At a higher unit price than last year to cover the repayment of soft loans plus SD`s extra margin on to the wholesale price
Works for everybody
Ashley gets a bigger margin per unit
Soft loans get repaid
Gullibillies don`t mind getting ripped off because they are signing superstars
The club continues to move backwards in accounting terms
Bu hey ho
Why should the GASL worry about that just now?
He will only be around until the cold shoulder is applied
that wont happen for at least another 3 months
Well after STs are sold
Does anyone suspect that Dave King leaving the board of the PLC might be part of the arrangement.
I’m thinking what with Alistair Johnston being recruited he would probably be a natural successor and acceptable to the support.
No info, just a thought.
I am happy to report to the board and the supporters of this much beloved institution that having persuaded Sports Direct to reconsider their onerous terms regarding Rangers branded material the future is now more secure for all of Rangers retail. When I first became aware of the previous boards dealings and arrangements I was livid. I knew if I could explain the situation to my fellow supporters they would agree we had to do something and with their backing we have managed a magnificent turnaround. The new football management has been provided with significant funding for quality signings to get this club back to where they belong. We are in European football competition and I am convinced that domestic challengers will be wary of us this year. Having accomplished what I set out to achieve and at no little cost personally, my other extensive business interests indicate I am now ready to stand down secure in the knowledge that the current board will secure Rangers place as a respected and feared football club once more.
You can have that for later James
TRFC are saying that it’s a better deal for them. I don’t think things will have changed much, but for this one thing. Winding up Rangers Retail. The split in net profits between SD & TRFC was 49-51. In the new arrangement TRFC will get 100% of the profits for sales in it’s megastore and on-line sales, which will probably be the majority of sales. As I said the incentive for MA is increased wholesale sales in terms of units shifted and the ramped up wholesale price.
The strange thing is this arrangement was mostly in place and could have been tweeked to the new situation two years ago without much pain. I am convinced it was the way DK went charging in making enemies needlessly trying to make himself look like billy big baws in front of the support. Don’t know what has happened to make both sides see sense. Maybe DK has been frozen out at board level.
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 21, 2017 at 20:20 Rate This
Does anyone suspect that Dave King leaving the board of the PLC might be part of the arrangement.
—————————-
Yes I agree
CORRUPT OFFICIALJUNE 21, 2017 at 20:03 1 Vote
EASYJAMBOJUNE 21, 2017 at 19:32 Jingso.Jimsie June 21, 2017 at 19:30=======================Thanks – Got it from the RTV interview. ——————————————————————– Would that be a concert party loan then EJ?…..I wonder what the takeover panel will make of that?
—————-
Rangers chairman Dave King also revealed he and other shareholders – including Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor – have provided additional funding to the club in recent weeks in the form of interest-free loans.
But king can’t put money in an escrow account to make the compulsory share offer?
———–
something just not ticking all the boxes for me.
Apparently for the new season TRFC are going to sell last years home kit at half price and this will be the home top for this season. That would seem to contradict what I have said. But I would suggest that there is a mountain of unsold tops lying in a warehouse somewhere which if I remember have to be bought at full retail price by Rangers Retail? or the club? Either way, fans will certainly be paying a lot more than £20 next season. Try £50.
JIMBOJUNE 21, 2017 at 20:47 Rate This
Apparently for the new season TRFC are going to sell last years home kit at half price and this will be the home top for this season.
———————
So not much money to be made on a half price top.
as i said earlier looks like we can’t pay for unsold stock.So let’s do a deal that let’s the fans buy last years strip at this years price. that will give SD the money they would have received for unsold stock.
—-
or even buy last years strip at a reduced price clears the warehouses and any claim for unsold stock from SD
JIMBO
JUNE 21, 2017 at 20:33 Maybe DK has been frozen out at board level.
================================
Talk of frozen makes me think of cold shoulders.
One also wonders if the Court of Session may have a part to play in the saga, what with King failing to do what he was instructed to do by the Takeover Panel and them referring the matter to the CoS. It’s all very quiet on that front.
Another question, is he just securing his legacy as a Rangers legend before going back to concentrate on his other business activities which have been so neglected.
Rangers: Chairman Dave King says season ticket funds will be spent on squad.
That would raise more than £11m, and King says the money will be spent on the playing squad.
—————
And today
Rangers chairman Dave King also revealed he and other shareholders – including Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor – have provided additional funding to the club in recent weeks in the form of interest-free loans.
King said the funding of this summer’s transfer activity, with six players arriving so far and the signings of two Mexican internationals – Carlos Pena and Eduardo Herrera – expected to be confirmed soon, did not take into account the possibility of the retail deal being revised.
———-
Did the funding to the club in recent weeks in the form of interest-free loans.buy the summer signings or was it the season ticket money?
The good people on follow follow have worked it out.
Several people are suggesting that Dave King bought the “Charlotte Fakes” material and has dirt on Mike Ashley. That is what has forced Ashley to totally capitulate and now Dave King is in total control as Ashley was afraid what King could reveal to the public. Others are accepting it as the only reasonable explanation.
Basically they are saying the chairman of the PLC which owns their club is blackmailing someone.
Let me just say that I think this is a total fabrication, however if either Big Pink or Trisidium feel it is inappropriate to repeat it here please feel free to remove this.
HOMUNCULUSJUNE 21, 2017 at 21:59 http://londoncriminalsolicitors.co.uk/theft/blackmail/
Others are accepting it as the only reasonable explanation.
Basically they are saying the chairman of the PLC which owns their club is blackmailing someone.
Let me just say that I think this is a total fabrication, however if either Big Pink or Trisidium feel it is inappropriate to repeat it here please feel free to remove this.
———————
Several people are suggesting and Others are accepting it as the only reasonable explanation.
just shows how they see their company chairman.Are they happy with what is suggested or at odd’s with what is suggested?
if either Big Pink or Trisidium feel this post is inappropriate please feel free to remove it.
i have not read follow follow just more or less asking their reactions to the suggestions
CLUSTER ONEJUNE 21, 2017 at 20:47
“something just not ticking all the boxes for me.”
——————————————————————————————–
Aye something not right being portrayed in the news.
The TOP hit DK with the majority of the concert party rap, basically from what I can see, for no other reason than, “They wurnae as bad as him”…..And they done a wee bit o blabbing. Wasn’t it they that brought it to the panels attention?
T3B’s getting into bed with him now, when they know a stiff shooder is coming down the pipe doesn’t ring true.
It’s a given that Uncle Mick wants rid.
Potentially a large swing in share power possibly occurred recently
All likeliehood is that DK probably did chip in for the players….But only the free transfers.
He might have been stuck in front of the cameras today, but I have a feeling he is further out of the circle than he has ever been. Stories have abound that DK has been largely incommunicado in S.A….. Who says anybody tried to contact him? He is nowt to do with them. (technically)
If this is the case, the irony of him being the one busted for conducting the band is not lost on me.
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/sport/news/investment-group-admits-rangers-share-sale/
OOPS !…Sorry, Wrong link, and now I can’t find qhat I was looking for…. A recent share purchase around the time of the takeover panel announcement.
CORRUPT OFFICIALJUNE 21, 2017 at 22:51
It’s a given that Uncle Mick wants rid.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4627374/Mike-Ashley-sell-stake-Rangers-deal.html
————————–
And, as part of the deal, Sportsmail understands Ashley will sell his 8.92-per-cent stake in Rangers to supporters’ groups and and unnamed overseas investor….Who are these people.? here we go again.
I wonder if it’s just that King is toast and the concert party & Ashley have cobbled together a settlement that buys King out and sells tops? I was struck at King’s demeanour in (blatantly) reading the statement….looked like there was a turd just below the camera.
From The Mail’s article.
“Rangers set to net an additional £5m a year via a huge increase in shirt sales”
Net income of £5m on shirt sales alone seems a tad optimistic to me. If they were making £10 a shirt, after VAT and corporation tax that would mean selling 500,000 shirts.
I don’t have any particular knowledge in the area but I just don’t see them having 500,000 supporters Worldwide who would all want to buy a strip.
That’s ignoring the fact that they are currently selling last years shirts at £20 a pop apparently.