The link at the bottom of this piece points to an excellent blog by James Forrest on the ‘decline’ of the Old Firm, and particularly the viewing figures for the recent matches between Celtic and TRFC.
Whilst James, as you would expect is focusing on the consequences of the OF tag for Celtic, it is worthwhile considering that the decline in viewers is an excellent litmus test of the provenance of TRFC with regard to RFC.
Is it because the ‘you’re not Rangers anymore!’ faction is winning the argument?
Or might it be that viewers, voting with their feet, are simply indicating what many of us have said all along – that a brand name does not amount to serious competition.
There has been a presumption – particularly held in the MSM- that Scottish football badly needed a Rangers to provide a challenge to Celtic dominance. Our counter to that is that TRFC, representing the ‘Rangers’ constituency, are in no position to provide any such challenge.
Common sense dictated this.
Not that common sense came into it for our newsroom chums. At the beginning of last season, a whole troupe of hacks ventured their prediction that TRFC would win at least one trophy in that campaign. Again this season, despite the huge gulf in performance levels between TRFC and the top two, even more hacks are queuing up to offer their optimism on the Ibrox club’s chances of success and glory.
I am bound to say that those same hacks will be quick to point out Gordon Strachan’s shortcomings as Scotland manager whilst ironically demonstrating, through their predictive deficit, that their football judgement has little if any bearing on L’actualité.
I am however disposed to charity. Perhaps what they meant was that TRFC, given its massive fan base, has the most potential (in time) to challenge Celtic. Then, absurdly, the same MSM choke the life out of that potential by assisting charlatan after charlatan on their way through the self-enriching revolving door at Ibrox.
The TRFC potential, if it exists in the foreseeable future, requires the Ibrox club to be rid of those who still, after decades of disgrace and disaster, sell the same false promises dressed up as moonbeams to the masses.
In actual fact, and as it stands right now, Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts have a significantly greater potential to challenge for honours; they are well run clubs who balance the books. Crucially, they have no debt, no directors whose presence on their boards effectively cuts off access to investment – and they put the emphasis on building Teams (capital T) and not collections of individuals with an exotic distant-past, questionable influence, and huge draw on salary resources .
Even more crucially, they have realistic expectations of where they want to be in the short to medium term.
TV audiences, relying on neutral fans hungry for a spectacle will not be – in fact are not – conned by this OF sophistry. Without doubt in my view, Scottish football is a far more interesting and compelling place now than it was five years ago. The brand has grown in the absence of the Old Firm, and with the right nurture, can grow even stronger.
TRFC can be part of it all, but the expectations have to be commensurate with their circumstances. All the OF has to offer is a 350 year old conflict that few of us understand – or care to understand. The MSM championing of that embarrassment is a major reason why Scottish football cares less about quality and diversity than it should.
The audiences however, will not be fooled.
Celtic, Rangers, the SFA and everybody else in our game need to jettison the OF brand. It is no longer – if it ever was- relevant. Paying customers in the 21st century deserve better than a geek show.
Pic from the Film Noire classic, Nightmare Alley
If King is forced to offer to buy shares, there will be a queue like an execution to cash in – of that I have no doubt.
I’m pretty certain that his end game is to make it impossible for him to continue at Rangers, giving him an excuse to bail whilst accusing the Takeover Panel of stopping him from using his financial might to put Rangers back where they belong etc.
The problem for the Ibrox club is that he will then be a significant creditor with no reason in the world to allow his loans to remain in place.
It was correct that Scotland didn’t qualify for the World Cup, for the 5th consecutive time.
Just not good enough.
And, in a perverse manner, it’s probably best that we didn’t sneak into the Finals.
Can you imagine the tsunami of SMSM feelgood p!sh if we somehow found ourselves going to Russia ?!
Strachan is a football genius.
Regan is the most successful SFA CEO in 20+ years.
The SFA has delivered!
Now, let’s all move for the good of Scottish football, and to support our national team.
When this brief qualifying distraction has subsided, we can focus again on the continuing incompetence / corruption at the SFA.
Yet nothing has really changed since 2012;
– Regan still has the implicit support of the member clubs.
– The SFA has already decided itself what needs improving.
– A proper review of how the SFA actually failed in recent years is still not forthcoming.
– There is still no transparency at Hampden, [except when it’s mentioned in the strategic objectives]
– The fans – who pay the SFA wages – are still treated with contempt by the blazers.
Any chance of a JR then ?
BIG PINK
OCTOBER 9, 2017 at 15:22
================================
As I understand it he has already been forced to make the offer BP, and has lost his appeal against that decision.
It’s just a case of the Panel having to actually go to Court to force him into abiding by their decision. It’s no different from HMRC having to go to the Sheriff Court in order to get Rangers to pay their bills / place an arrestment on their bank account.
Re the loans, something like £6.75m is due to be repaid in December (I’m not sure how much of that is owed to King). There’s an assumption that the lenders won’t want their money back at that time. However what happens to King at the CoS may change their minds on that.
It could be a much bigger deal than people seem to think.
I do like your suggestion of “death by Court”, it makes sense of what otherwise would just appear to be lunacy on his part.
In keeping with BBC Scotland’s stance, who does the news programme go to for comment on the Strachan failure?
Why ,none other than the Professor who tells foreign students that the anger at Rangers cheating is just a little ‘west of Scotland, inter-fan ‘rivalry, between old rivals, ha, ha, nothing to worry about.
I give you Professor Jarvie, apologist extraordinaire for a failed SFA and a failed (genetically) wee man with a thing about ‘height’ being the answer. To hear him prate on tonight , about the SFA is doing wonderfully well, let’s just pick ourselves up and go forward….
Gave me the boak, that a professor of Sport can be so supportive of the cheating of a what was once a major football club, and supportive of the leadership of a Sports governance body that helped in that cheating.
It would make be reluctant to take anything that the said Professor might say in his academic papers, given his ready and unquestioning acceptance of the nonsense spoken and done by the SFA re the saga.
HOMUNCULUSOCTOBER 9, 2017 at 16:19
Re the loans, something like £6.75m is due to be repaid in December (I’m not sure how much of that is owed to King). There’s an assumption that the lenders won’t want their money back at that time. However what happens to King at the CoS may change their minds on that.
—————–
Re the loans, and i’m going all EASYJAMBO here
Remembering you read something but just can’t remember where.Did i not read a while ago that £18m will not be repaid until January 2017 at the earliest and it was a ticking time bomb that was coming down the road,that may have been kicked down the road until Dec 2017.Something like TRFC owes the parent company millions but the holding company had no intention to claim the money back in the foreseeable future.
(maybe they were expecting a share issue)
what ever happened to that?
CLUSTER ONE
OCTOBER 9, 2017 at 18:17
===============================
It’s more the money that the holding company owes the directors and their associates I was thinking about.
Bearing in mind there were further loans subsequent to these accounts.
As to a share issue, I would imagine the Court of Session dealing with Dave King would make that a tad awkward just now. Then there’s the small matter of the concert party getting even more shares in a debt for equity swap.
Oh and the latest accounts (for June 2017) might also be a bit problematic.
Cluster One October 9, 2017 at 18:17
Re the loans, and i’m going all EASYJAMBO here Remembering you read something but just can’t remember where.Did i not read a while ago that £18m will not be repaid until January 2017 at the earliest and it was a ticking time bomb that was coming down the road,that may have been kicked down the road until Dec 2017.Something like TRFC owes the parent company millions but the holding company had no intention to claim the money back in the foreseeable future. (maybe they were expecting a share issue) what ever happened to that?
===========================
The original loans totalling £3.75m taken out before June 2015 are all repayable on demand. The breakdown of these was as follows:
£1.5m from King, previously repayable by December 2015, but now on demand.
£0.75 directors loans (Park, Bennet, Murray), repayable as King above.
£1.5m shareholders loans (Taylor, Letham, Ross, Scott, Murdoch) repayable as King above
The £6.275m in loans taken out during the financial year to June 2016 (ostensibly to pay-off Ashley), are repayable in December 2017. The breakdown of these was as follows:
£2.2m from King (another £800k was available to be drawn down)
£1.7m from the directors above
£2.375m from shareholders above
A further £2.9m was borrowed in October 2016, with further funding required as as detailed in the last Accounts.
At the time of preparation, the forecast identified that the group would require up to £4.0m by way of debt or equity funding by the end of season 2016/2017 in order to meet its liabilities as they fall due. Following the progression of the team to the Semi Finals of the Scottish League Cup, the funding requirement is now anticipated to be £3.75m. The first tranche of funding amounting to £2.9m was received from investors in October 2016, with further funds forecast to be required in March 2017. Further funding is likely to be required during the 2017/18 season, the quantum of which is dependent on future football performance and European football participation.
In the interim accounts for 2016/17 it was reported that the extra funding beyond the £2.9m was not required due to additional revenue from cup runs.
The Inter-company balance stood at £18.1m in June 2015, but was reclassified as equity under “investment in subsidiaries” in the 2016 accounts. On the basis of how the inter-company balance was previously calculated then the comparable balance should have been around £24m in 2016, plus the £2.9m borrowed in Oct 2016, making the 2017 total around £26.9m.
BP
Rangers were not the club people believed they were for many years. We now know that to a large extent they were getting by on huge debts and tax avoidance, for a very long time.
At their high point David Murray was allowing debts to mount and mount, until they owed tens of millions of pounds, so much so that he had to have a failed £50m share issue. He covered that himself by effectively moving debt about within his “empire”.
On a like for like basis Rangers were not able to compete with Celtic financially for a very long time. Celtic sold more season tickets, raised more from sponsorship and sold more merchandise. I remember calculating that Celtic were making something like £8m more domestically, every year.
European football and good money from it was vital to both clubs. More so for Rangers as they ran at huge losses without it. Quite simply they needed it to survive, hence the Scottish football authorities cheating to make sure they got it.
The new club is, if anything, in a worse position. The support might not realise or accept this, however just now their only consideration is survival.
I do not use the OF term, I would be happy never to hear it again.
EASYJAMBOOCTOBER 9, 2017 at 19:05
I knew there was a figure of £18 mill for something…thanks for reply
——————–
HOMUNCULUSOCTOBER 9, 2017 at 18:59
As to a share issue, I would imagine the Court of Session dealing with Dave King would make that a tad awkward just now.
———–
After reading back over my post, i can see that it looks like i’m asking what ever happened to the share issue.
thanks for reply.but it was more what ever happened to the millions to be repaid,sorry for confusion and again thanks for reply.
Celtic stopped referring to their game against the newly recreated version of The Rangers as an Old Firm Match some time ago.
it is high time the MSM , and all those in authority, recognised the true nature of this fixture and did the same.
CLUSTER ONE
OCTOBER 9, 2017 at 19:21
============================
Got you, I think EJ has covered the loans fairly comprehensively.
However I do think we have to consider the ramifications of a debt for equity swap. Particularly as it relates to both King and the rest of the concert party.
Remember if they do it with pre-emption rights removed then they will be diluting other people’s percentage holding, and at the same time increasing their own. That’s in addition to any shares King buys when he makes the 20p offer.
King could potentially end up owning 30% of the company on his own. If he does that then will he have to make another offer.
Cluster One – King claimed that the share issue couldn’t happen for legal reasons. At the time, everyone assumed that the reason to be related to the Fraudco trial and the claims made by Law Financial / Worthington / Henderson & Jones.
Once the TOP and TAP reports were published, we all found out that the “legal reason” was in fact the TOP’s concert party investigation. For once King was telling truth, but King being King, he chose not to disclose the nature of the legal constraint.
If the CoS action drags on into the new year, then I can’t see any share issue happening anytime soon, even if a disapplication of pre-emption rights is passed at the next AGM.
On the blog and BILLYJ1 post
BILLYJ1OCTOBER 9, 2017 at 19:26 2 0 Rate This
Celtic stopped referring to their game against the newly recreated version of The Rangers as an Old Firm Match some time ago.it is high time the MSM , and all those in authority, recognised the true nature of this fixture and did the same.
————–
On speaking to a couple of ibrox fan’s friends.and reminding them that celtic fans and even celtic don’t refer to the term old firm now,and that it is only fans of the ibrox club and the SMSM and the games chiefs that mention it whenever they can.
I asked them celtic fans don’t call it the old firm anymore, why is it the ibrox fans still do?
The answer was “because it is”
My reply was but it is not and celtic fans don’t want to be associated with it anymore and want to move away from that term.
So i asked do you the ibrox fans still use it to be relevant and associated with celtic?
Are you telling me you use it to be associated with celtic?
You are hanging onto the old firm tag like hanging onto celtic’s coat tail to be relavant to celtic.
I said don’t you see it? you want a part of celtic more than celtic want a part of you.Don’t you see it?
When you see the penny start to drop
But then in an ibrox friend kind of way i got. Na we just use it because we know you don’t, just to get it right up yees
And with a smile we went for a drink.
The TRFC fans’ insistence on the OF tag has more to do with laying down a continuity marker.
My guess is that they won’t be completely happy to have to portray themselves as defined by their relationship to Celtic. Ironically though, it is the continuation of that relationship that is the foundation of their ‘same club’ doctrine.
Yet another of the extremely bendy turns and twists and convolutions that have to be performed by the press and the Rangers fans when discussing TRFC. It must be exhausting – but it has now become an article of faith.
I suppose they are the unrequited half of the old partnership. The marriage is over, but they just won’t agree to a divorce.
The argument is lost, but the debate continues. A bit like The Anderssen/Kieseritzky Immortal Game – without the checkmate 🙂
easyJamboOctober 9, 2017 at 20:01
‘..If the CoS action drags on into the new year……’
_____________
Speculating on that, eJ, I wonder whether there is any real likelihood of the action dragging on?
A two-day hearing of argument is pretty extensive, and Lord Bannatyne has only really to decide whether or not he is satisfied that King has complied with a ‘Rule-based requirement’.
It’s not as though the action is being taken by King , as any kind of further Appeal , or Petition for Judicial review of the TAP decision.
If the Court is satisfied, then it has to grant the TOP petition and order compliance.
But I can see that there might be long discussion about whether and to what extent ‘compliance’ is actually possible in the terms of the Tap’s order.
That might mean that the Judge doesn’t announce any decision for a few days.
Can’t actually wait till Thursday to see and hear what happens!
I only hope that things go ‘my’ way!
John Clark October 9, 2017 at 21:59
easyJamboOctober 9, 2017 at 20:01 ‘..If the CoS action drags on into the new year……’
_____________
Speculating on that, eJ, I wonder whether there is any real likelihood of the action dragging on? A two-day hearing of argument is pretty extensive, and Lord Bannatyne has only really to decide whether or not he is satisfied that King has complied with a ‘Rule-based requirement’. It’s not as though the action is being taken by King , as any kind of further Appeal , or Petition for Judicial review of the TAP decision. If the Court is satisfied, then it has to grant the TOP petition and order compliance. But I can see that there might be long discussion about whether and to what extent ‘compliance’ is actually possible in the terms of the Tap’s order. That might mean that the Judge doesn’t announce any decision for a few days. Can’t actually wait till Thursday to see and hear what happens! I only hope that things go ‘my’ way!
======================
You could well be right but two days court time on a Thu/Fri means a day and a half at most, particularly with a 10am start. All being well, I hope to be free on Thursday morning, and all day Friday, if it goes on that long.
I still don’t know how “cold shoulder” is actually implemented. Does it have any legal standing? My understanding is that if King refuses to comply with TOP, then he will be subject to being cold shouldered, meaning that no UK regulated financial organisation will deal with with him. I would suspect that could only be implemented on a voluntary basis, particularly if “cold shoulder” has no legal standing. Basically, King would be on a black list of doubtful characters, but it would be up to each financial organisation to decide whether or not to risk dealing with him.
So the question has to be, what powers does the CoS have and what sanctions could they impose on a delinquent King? If King says he has insufficient funds, or is restricted by SA regulations on currency exchange, what will the CoS do? As I speculated previously, I don’t believe he will be allowed to argue his case that was presented to TOP and TAP, so what will the debate be about, other than the practicality of enforcement and the scope of any sanctions to be imposed.
I expect the Court of Session to instruct Dave King to make the offer within a specified time.
If he does not then he will be held in contempt of Court and they will take action commensurate with that.
If anyone is particularly interested , I came across this paper discussing recent Takeover Panel contested decisions, with the case of ‘Rangers FC’ being one discussed.
“Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation
Learnings from Some Recent Contested Cases Before the UK Takeover PanelPosted by Selina Sagayam, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, onSaturday, July 22, 2017”
on this link https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/07/22/learnings-from-some-recent-contested-cases-before-the-uk-takeover-panel/
Annoyingly, in the ‘background of facts’, they jump from the liquidation of ‘old rangers’ to the incorporation of RIFC plc, without mentioning Sevco 5088,SevcoScotland Ltd, TRFC Ltd or Rangers Football plc, as if there was only ‘Rangers FC’ immediately followed by RIFC plc as a company that had simply taken over the club!
I shall be writing to Selina Sagayam [aptly named, what?]
(I was actually trying to find any case where TOP had had to get a Court involved. If they have ever had to, I can’t so far track any down)
easyJamboOctober 9, 2017 at 22:35
‘…Does it have any legal standing? ‘
____Yep, the legal powers are there, all tied in with the Financial Conduct Authority and the Rule-making powers of the Takeover panel.
Given King’s previous total denial in RSA – right up until last minute – is it possible that he will go the whole journey, and if (when) he loses, just make the offer anyway?
Doesn’t seem to be a way of avoiding Contempt of Court charges if he fails to comply with any order, and CoC is an extraditable offence I think
An interesting fact:
The term ‘old firm’ was jointly registered as a trademark by Celtic and the old Rangers in 1998.
In 2002 Celtic transfered its interest in the trademark to an off the shelf subsidiary, ‘Celtic F.C. Limited’.
When Duff and Phelps sold the Rangers trademarks to Sevco Scotland Ltd, the ‘old firm’ trademarks were not included.
I would imagine that the joint registration contract contains a clause that prohibits the transfer of title without the approval of the other party. We can assume that Celtic did not approve.
Rangers interest in the trademark remains with the ex-football club. When bdo completes its work and the club is finally dissolved, the ‘old firm’ trademark will belong exclusively to Celtic.
BIG PINKOCTOBER 9, 2017 at 21:52
I’ve seen a few recent online hints about a Rangers Mark3 and David Murray making a return to Ibrox. Absolutely no idea if it is true or not but I reckon things are so desperate the Rangers fans, the media, and the SFA would welcome it with open arms.
PS I don’t call him ‘Sir’ David because I don’t have to.
JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 9, 2017 at 23:43
(I was actually trying to find any case where TOP had had to get a Court involved. If they have ever had to, I can’t so far track any down)
——————
I believe i read this is a first. That’s why we can’t find out what may happen.When you go to court this week JC you may be witness to one of those points in time.
UPTHEHOOPS
OCTOBER 10, 2017 at 07:07
================================
Do you think David Murray wants any part in a loss making football club, or PLC holding company, which owes tens of millions of pounds which are now effectively payable on demand.
I just don’t see why he would want the hassle, or debt. He has been there and done that. He has even had to set up tax avoidance schemes to afford keeping it going.
BIG PINKOCTOBER 9, 2017 at 21:52
” The marriage is over, but they just won’t agree to a divorce”.
There’s even a big dollup of morbid jealousy in all this. I mentioned yonks ago that I think some people would rather tear down and destroy Scottish football if no rangers were part of it or getting the respect it felt was owed to them being the “scottish institution” it was. A spurned ex-lover, if you don’t take them back will make damn sure no-one else will have you.
Just on the recent whispers that David Murray might be on his way back, surely this would be a non-starter. Crashes the club, HMRC shafted, creditors shafted and then rides back again after the fall-out ? Now that would be the brass of all brassnecks !!!
Cluster OneOctober 10, 2017 at 07:28
‘…When you go to court this week JC you may be witness to one of those points in time.’
____________
Haircut and Slater suit time, then, in case there’s a photo-shoot!
Re Murray the man would have to be a fool to get financially involved again. But then a, he is clearly an arrogant fool and b/ his historic cv shows that he only ever liked the illusion of being financially involved. I think any push for yet more fans money, which is what it will inevitably and ultimately take since one would imagine ‘institutions’ with banks chief amongst them will give it a wide berth, is going to require a hell of an illusion and figurehead. I suspect this will be where his role will lie if any.
The prospectus, if it gets that far might as well read Murray + THEIR 10IAR = Guillible = Money. Interestingly, stopping 10IAR will therefore put a time limitation on it, something that hasn’t really featured so far, not just a buyout in whatever shape or form but for the expected resultant success as well.
What will be more interesting is whether any re-ignition can be done without hostility or whether it would need a controlled admin to put all the current players into their respective boxes.
SMUGAS
OCTOBER 10, 2017 at 10:16
What will be more interesting is whether any re-ignition can be done without hostility or whether it would need a controlled admin to put all the current players into their respective boxes.
====================================
I’m a bit confused by that bit. What is a “controlled admin”.
Nice picture at the top from Nightmare Alley. I do like a good Film Noir. For the purists these are low budget affairs with no major stars (Rangers) that may or may not involve a death (Rangers, again), a double cross (Greene/Whyte), a private detective, also known as a ‘dick’, trying to work out what the hell is going on but is hopelessly behind the curve and manipulated by others (Keith Jackson), a collection of chancers, charlatans and criminals (Rangers boardroom) and with a narrative and worldview that’s undeniably pessimistic (armageddon). Have we been watching one these past few years?
In the 1940s when loads of these classic movies were made the term Film Noir wasn’t around in Hollywood. It was coined by a French critic who noticed the similarities within these movies and the term stuck. Some argue that Film Noir is not a genre but a state of mind. What’s the state of mind of many in the Rangers saga? Cognitive dissonance?
So Film Noir is seen as an accurate and widely used description these days. Seems like the opposite is true of the Old Firm.
Homunculus – An admin where the debtor (Rangers (sic)) essentially retains control of the process to achieve an agreeable outcome, agreeable that is to ‘Rangers(sic)’ and to whoever is putting up the cash (lets call him Fergus for the sake of arguement). In this case it would be a new investor (Fergus) with further monies to invest emerging holding the shares in the existing company (which one?) but ideally without the 10m pre-existing debt. I’ve also still never got my head around the original IPO debt between RIFC and TRFC – suffice it to say that won’t be allowed to sit in the background either.
Would King, Park, Taylor et al voluntarily (what I referred to above as non hostile) sell their shares? Well presumably they would IF their loans were to be repaid but that adds £10m to the new player’s bill. Would they accept equity in the new company in exchange for their debt? Possibly, but why would the new investor offer a share of the action? I wouldn’t. At least not without some kind of promise of further investment inwards from them first, the very thing they’re currently trying to avoid. Not when I have the following option…
Alternatively a strategic creditor could force an admin, or even just threaten to force an admin, whereby the loans would presumably become p:£ creditors (its never been clear if the loans are secured on anything). It would take a brave man to resist the advances, to hold onto his shareholding to ‘retain control’ when in fact all he would have control over would be a bankrupt company owing a lot of money to him with an ever expectant fan base wondering what the hold up is (no pun intentended
). And lets not forget a compliant media now portraying you as the devil incarnate, the inhibitor to future glory, or, as its now known, doing an Easdale.
Essentially a Murray or a Johnson or a whoever are now perfectly placed to starve you out.
Oh, sorry – time barred – just to add that you now don’t even have confidence that the ‘company,’ the touchy feely legal thing that you currently control is actually ‘Rangers’ since that now seems to be an entirely transportable commodity.
T’was ever thus. Only it wasn’t.
SMUGAS
OCTOBER 10, 2017 at 11:29
===========================
What you describe doesn’t sound very much like administration to me, though it’s a subject I don’t know very much about. In fact I’m struggling to understand it at all. You want the current shareholders to sell their shares, and the current creditors (in some instances the same people) to forgive their debt. Sorry if I have picked you up wrong.
With regards a “strategic creditor”, who would that be. If Rangers’ are paying their bills as they fall due, and I haven’t seen any suggestion they aren’t (albeit via loans) then how can anyone force administration. You cannot move to wind a business up if it is paying you what it owes, at the time the payment is due.
Sorry but I just don’t understand what you are suggesting, entirely due to my own ignorance I am sure.
A lot of the conversation is riding around the Big Liar, but what of T3B’s position in all this?. The shares situation will be decided at the CoS, but due to the SARS imposed overseas investment embargo, I imagine the paper trail of any funds (loans) he has slipped in will be deep and convoluted.
Can he prove he has injected any funding?…..If so, so can others.
He could opt to litigate under the corporate veil, but would he dare under the watchful eye of Mr Chipps?
Basically what I am saying is could T3B’s just sit tight, fold their arms, and say, “Loans?..What loans?……Prove it !”
Speculative, I know, but would it be possible?
Homunculus,
I myself am in way over my head and it is mere idle speculation on my part!
Imagine you are Douglas Park sitting with whatever it is in shares and whatever it is in loans outstanding. You need two things.
Firstly you need to be sure that no creditor (a seemingly friendly face at the boardroom table or the local newspaper shop eager not to get burned twice) calls an admin due to a default on his debt in which case your loans become potentially worthless and your share price certainly isn’t going up any time soon particularly if your face no longer fits. As you say there’s no credible suggestion of that happening just yet.
Separately, to avoid this happening and assuming the cupboard is already bare which we understand it is ‘your’ company needs cash from somewhere since, as others are wont to say, it is a loss making company without a credit line from a bank. What do you do? Extend your own credit line? Normally you would at least take a security over something to protect yourself but you specifically promised your fanbase, or as you call them your cashflow, that you wouldn’t do that.
The ‘Fergus’ of my scenario knows these points only too well. Fergus only needs two things. Cash – hopefully temporarily to be repaid by a future IPO a la Green, Murray first time around or indeed the original Fergus and to be perceived as Ranger’s future, particularly by the press thus engaging the blue pound and avoiding unhelpful nasty things like boycotts. It would be very difficult for someone, shareholder or not, to hold out against those two elements, not without chucking good money after bad to prop it up and try to stave off the inevitable. Of course they could always become profitable and cash neutral
You didn’t actually believe the old dynasty’s claims to have Celtics best interests at heart in selling to Fergus did you? They sold because they knew they were backed into a corner and had no other cheap option.
So, in a metaphor pile-up do you jump on the train before the sh1t hits the fan and pee out of the window, or do you stand on the platform and, ironically, stand ready… And if its the latter do you trust your fellow shareholders and creditors to show the same resolve? I’ve a suspicion if you do the ‘right’ thing all that’s going to happen is you’re going to get lonely. And wet.
Smugas October 10, 2017 at 11:29
I’ve also still never got my head around the original IPO debt between RIFC and TRFC – suffice it to say that won’t be allowed to sit in the background either.
============================
The inter-company debt was created from funds handed over from RIFC share issues, i.e. the IPO (net value £16.163m) and the Sep 2014 share offer (£3.033m).
RIFC’s own operating costs (a few £xxxK per annum) were paid for by TRFC and subtracted from the inter-company balance.
It is not clear if the RIFC Directors or Shareholder loans have been added to that debt, as they have all been lumped together as “investments in subsidiaries” along with the value of the shareholding in TRFC.
Thanks EJ.
So presumably any buy out (hostile or otherwise) would be of RIFC with its incumbent 100% shareholding in TRFC?
And apologies for not including the recent ‘budge-led’ buy out of Romanov’s holding from administration in my example!
SMUGAS
OCTOBER 10, 2017 at 13:31
======================================
The problem with your “Fergus” analogy is that the situations aren’t analogous.
Fergus paid off the debt, bought the business, floated it and made a lot of money when people bought into it. However he also built a news stadium and took the season tickets from less than 10,000 to over 50,000. He totally revamped the business and made a profit in doing it.
It was actually a good business opportunity which he saw and put his money into, it worked. I do not think the same opportunity currently exists with RIFC PLC. Not without putting in a huge amount of money and hoping for success in Europe. David Murray tried that (with other people’s money) and the club ended up in liquidation.
Rangers chance of success was to gradually build based on a sustainable business model. They didn’t do it because they are the people and couldn’t accept they are just a football club /business like everyone else. Did Walter Smith not even say that Rangers could not be looked at like any other football club, if they had to run at a loss to be successful then they just had to do it.
JOHN CLARK
OCTOBER 10, 2017 at 10:09
Cluster OneOctober 10, 2017 at 07:28
‘…When you go to court this week JC…’
____________
Haircut and Slater suit time, then, in case there’s a photo-shoot!
===========================
Reminds me of that old joke: “How do you know when JC is up in court ?”
Ah’ll get ma jaiket!
[Apologies JC, but couldn’t resist!
]
Headline from the DR;
‘SFA are sycophants who are in awe of Gordon Strachan’ Watch our top team deliver no-holds barred verdict
…”
====================
The SMSM sycophants calling the SFA sycophants ?!
Priceless.
And I never knew that the DR sports section had a ‘top team’ of journalists ?
Must be more of that fake news…
Just catching up with all things SFM. Lots of chatter over the summer that TRFC needed circa £4m injection of funding at the end of September – PMG who is usually reliable v consistent on this point.
Do we know if this funding has been delivered by shareholders/directors/others?
If not, was this because it was not actually needed or is everybody hanging on to their pennies pending the forthcoming legal action on TOP ruling?
Or is there currently radio silence out of Ibrox?
Homunculus,
Without turning this into the Fergus show but to try and demonstrate where similarities might lie…
Fergus acquired 51% of the Celtic Clumpany thingy in return, presumably, for guaranteeing the overdraft. I don’t think he actually repaid it per se, rather he rebanked it to (?)Bank of Ireland(?). Separately he injected further operating capital but perhaps someone more enlightened can inform us if this was part of the deal, a requirement to get the shares, or a simple inevitable consequence after the event.
I’m not clear how he got the 51% (direct sale of shares to him or a very hurried dilution and re-issue) the point is all of the sellers eventually had two options. Go along with it or see the whole thing go puff. One assumes the third option of them putting in more monies, even putting in place the collateralised guarantee HBoS were seeking at the time, had been assessed and rejected.
My point is that the existing RIFC shareholders must be approaching the same point.
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
OCTOBER 10, 2017 at 13:23
The shares situation will be decided at the CoS, but due to the SARS imposed overseas investment embargo, I imagine the paper trail of any funds (loans) he has slipped in will be deep and convoluted. Can he prove he has injected any funding?
——————————————–
Where did DCK get £1.5m (pre-June 2015) & £2.2m (pre-June 2016) from? All his assets were supposed to be returned to & be controlled from South Africa after his fraud case.
It appears that an individual tax-payer (no laughing, but the guide actually states ‘in good standing’) can invest off-shore, with approval of the South African authorities, up to 10m Rand per year. There is also the facility to invest a further 1m Rand with minimal oversight. That’s about £660k in total. It’s also possible to ask to invest more & get clearance.
Am I reading this wrong & it’s not DCK alone but members of New Oasis Asset Ltd (which seems to be part of the DCK-controlled Sovereign Trust International Ltd, which in turn is part of DCK’s family-owned Glencoe Investments) combining their allowances to provide funding, or has someone else (in Scotland or elsewhere) ‘fronted’ him the money? It’s a decent ‘sub’ if they have!
SMUGAS
OCTOBER 10, 2017 at 16:36
Homunculus,
Without turning this into the Fergus show but to try and demonstrate where similarities might lie…
Fergus acquired 51% of the Celtic Clumpany thingy in return, presumably, for guaranteeing the overdraft.
===================================
This is what happened according to David Low, who was there.
As told in the Herald.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/13148296.The_Saving_of_Celtic__Part_One__David_Low/
Kevin Kelly and Jack McGinn came to see us in an office in Park Terrace and told us the bank wanted money. They said they had a meeting with Gerald Weisfeld who was going to pay off the overdraft but there was no plan for the future.
I told them not to go to the meeting with Weisfeld but to tell the bank that a solution could be found. The bank then basically said: “We want a million within 48 hours and another four million by the end of the week.”
I phoned up Fergus and got him off the golf course in Phoenix, Arizona. I told him: “Your time has come. They want £1m.”
He says “okay.”
He authorises the £1m and books a flight to Glasgow. He arrives on the morning of the fourth of March.
We then had a meeting and then went to the bank. The deadline was 12 noon. We stayed until the money arrived as these were as the days before immediate transfers.
We picked up a banker’s draft and briskly walked, not ran, up to the Bank of Scotland and gave them the draft.
The paperwork was signed, with me as a witness, and that is when the 11.52 comes in. I remember looking at my watch and noting the time.
Four days later, the other £4m was paid. That was all a reckless risk on the part of Fergus. It says Fergus is a blind, mad Celtic fan or he was confident in his business plan.
Maybe both.
All he had achieved by then was to become Celtic’s largest unsecure creditor. He was not on the board, he has no share. We all trail up to Celtic Park to get control of the club. We have to get Fergus on to the board.
I can only remember getting Fergus to change his mind twice. The first one was supporting my plan over shares and then other was giving the board members money.
He was against that but bowed to reality. We were in control. We then had to have a general meeting to convert his loans into equity and to register the shares and put in more money. Michael McDonald and Willie Haughey joined the board and we then had the big share issue in December ’94.
——————————————————————
Let’s just agree to disagree. I do not think the current situation at Rangers is the same as it was at Celtic at that time. I think that is something Rangers supporters hope/believe can happen. They probably thought it was going to be Craig Whyte, then Charles Green, then Dave King …
Oh, just remembered in time, it was the Co-op they moved to, and have stayed with them ever since as i understand it.
As I said I understand BoS asked for a collateralised guarantee for £1m outright – the 12’o clock David speaks of and a larger figure again collateralised in a reasonable amount of time presumably to cover the balance outstanding. What he actually then did I’m happy to defer to thems that wiz there!
But fundamentally there were shareholders on board (the train and the plan) and others who were left with no alternative but to go along with it. By David’s account above it sounds like the debt to equity exchange drowned them.
Sorry, on phone now so can’t edit.
im arguing there are similarities from the perspective of the shareholders currently involved.
Trust me when I say if I was going to argue the relative merits of the respective business cases I wouldn’t even try to do it on here!
SMUGAS
OCTOBER 10, 2017 at 18:07
As I said I understand BoS asked for a collateralised guarantee for £1m outright – the 12’o clock David speaks of and a larger figure again collateralised in a reasonable amount of time presumably to cover the balance outstanding. What he actually then did I’m happy to defer to thems that wiz there!
======================================
I’m really not sure where you get this “collateralised guarantee” thing from. According to David Low Fergus McCann paid £1m (by draft) immediately, and paid the other £4m within four days. So he cleared the £5m.
He did it with his own money, then went about getting control of the club. He had to pay off the existing owners in order to do that. Then he converted his loans to equity.
Again, if you think someone is going to do that with Rangers then fair enough. I just don’t see it.
JINGSO.JIMSIEOCTOBER 10, 2017 at 16:50
Where did DCK get £1.5m (pre-June 2015) & £2.2m (pre-June 2016) from? All his assets were supposed to be returned to & be controlled from South Africa after his fraud case
—————————————————————————————
That’s kind of my point. If he has provided funds, and they are outwith SARS limitations, then they will be heavily camouflaged with no obvious link to him.
As you say, it may have been coughed by A.N.Other(s)4….In which case he won ‘t be *rsed.
The main thrust of what I was trying to say though, is that when the CoS reach a decision, it will be as much to do with how T3B’s react, as it is to do with him.
HOMUNCULUSOCTOBER 10, 2017 at 09:41
On the face of it no. The last time he was there he had a bank who were not only willing to finance them way beyond what they should have, they were also willing to attempt to put his main rivals out of business. When that bank fell out of Scottish control he used tens of millions of taxpayers money to finance them, but the door is now firmly closed on that.
However, what is clear over these past six years is that David Murray still retains considerable influence within the establishment. There has not even been a mention of his Knighthood being stripped from anyone who counts in such matters, not to mention almost a billion pounds worth of debt dumped by the bank. So who knows who he could bring along with him should he somehow manage to pick up a Rangers Mark3 with no debt. In my view he is virtually guaranteed whatever support he needs from the SFA, barring a Judicial Review actually happening and clearing Hampden of the charlatans currently inhabiting the sixth floor. If they waived King through, then I can’t see Murray being a problem.
UPTHEHOOPS
OCTOBER 10, 2017 at 19:53
================================
How does the PLC suddenly become debt free. There are loans of around £14m that we already know about from the last audited accounts. That number is not going to be any smaller now, or at least I don’t see why it would be.
Do you believe the current creditors will give that money up.
Because POTENTIALLY if they don’t accept some degree of burn on their loans then assuming they’re unsecured and assuming they’re not willing to put in any more funding to keep it going they’re at risk of losing the lot.
HOMUNCULUSOCTOBER 10, 2017 at 20:02
I don’t know the answer to that, I am only speculating. At a guess they might be willing to cut their losses.
TINCKSOCTOBER 10, 2017 at 15:17 10 0 Rate This
Just catching up with all things SFM. Lots of chatter over the summer that TRFC needed circa £4m injection of funding at the end of September – PMG who is usually reliable v consistent on this point.
Do we know if this funding has been delivered by shareholders/directors/others?
If not, was this because it was not actually needed or is everybody hanging on to their pennies pending the forthcoming legal action on TOP ruling?
Or is there currently radio silence out of Ibrox?
——————
From what i remember and i think it was from phil.
TRFC needed circa £4m i think they asked from one director as the others did not have a pot to piss in and i believe £1 mill was offered and not a penny more.
Don’t know what happened.
If you have time you could look over some of phils blogs
TINCKSOCTOBER 10, 2017 at 15:17
Have a read
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/09/15/professional-competence-and-the-meaning-of-words/#more-10229
————–
If you have time you could look over some of phils blogs
–
I had a bit of time
JINGSO.JIMSIEOCTOBER 10, 2017 at 16:50
Where did DCK get £1.5m (pre-June 2015) & £2.2m (pre-June 2016) from? All his assets were supposed to be returned to & be controlled from South Africa after his fraud case.
—————-
Did i not read it was some Hong kong life long rangers fan or something
CLUSTER ONE
wasn’t a janitor called henry was it?or am i just talkng phooey
TONYOCTOBER 10, 2017 at 21:26
just as well i’m old enough to remember that janitor.
Big smile,
individual investor Julian Wolhardt investing £1million to buy Ashley out.Wolhardt, 44, who is the CEO of Hong Kong based private equity firm Dehong Capital Partners, also takes an important stake.
I think this is where i got the hong kong guy from.But that along with club 1872 was to buy out all of Ashleys shares.
upthehoopsOctober 10, 2017 at 19:53
‘… what is clear over these past six years is that David Murray still retains considerable influence within the establishment. ………….So who knows who he could bring along with him should he somehow manage to pick up a Rangers Mark3 with no debt. In my view he is virtually guaranteed whatever support he needs from the SFA,..’
___________
Some people, I seem to recollect, were wicked enough to express the view that David Murray( let’s us strip him of his empty title , a title which originally betokened that whoever bore it was a man most noble , honourable, and worthy of respect ) had roped in CW to be the means by which he got shot of the debts owed by Rangers 1872, secure in the knowledge that that club would come blithely out of Administration debt free, having suffered nothing but a ten point penalty.
Whereupon he could take up the reins again, by ‘buying out’ CW, to become again the majority shareholder, in the sure and certain knowledge that his Rangers would still be in the Premier League, but (in)gloriously debt free, and able once again to do the ‘for every £5….’ bit, to keep the lieges satisfied.
It would be quite monstrous for anyone to suggest that any such plan that he may have had was scuppered by CG and the still-shrouded-in-mystery ‘novation’ from Sevco5088 to SevcoScotland, and the inevitable plunge into liquidation of RFC 1872.
And it would be a nonsense to imagine that a proud, ‘hubristic’ even,man like David Murray could be happy that an individual who believes he was treated badly by David Murray and who appears to want his money back,(along with a bit of revenge for having been slighted) is now sitting in the top spot in the ersatz ‘Rangers’ of 2012 vintage, which our Governance body mendaciously tells us is one and the same as the original!
A very shaky top spot, at that.
Oh, for a best-selling author to write the story. It is a story, a fiction, isn’t it? Ach, of course it is.That kind of scenario couldn’t possibly happen in real life!
I agree with you, uth, that on the practical level, there is nothing to stop a pillar of the establishment, already hugely accommodated by two Banks, and nicely carving out some prime development sites in Edinburgh (” planning permission Sir David? Why, of course!Most happy to oblige”) exercising his financial skills in the finance world in a way that the present Board of RIFC plc cannot do, to raise the dough to take over (at no personal risk, of course).
I am far from being hubristic, very far from being vengeful, but I do,albeit shamefully, draw some small satisfaction from the settling of such minor scores that my humble pride feels it necessary to settle.
If I were a wealthy man…….who knows what I’d be like!
David Murray is a wealthy man.
Cluster OneOctober 10, 2017 at 20:52
Thanks for the reply. After a losing track for a month or so I’ve been catching up over the last couple of days. I’d read the blog of Phil’s that you linked to. That’s really the position I’m alluding to, the need for £4 and seemingly not able to raise it all. So where do things stand now? I’m guessing that only time will tell.
‘He was dismissed from the Royal Navy in 1814 following a controversial conviction for fraud on the Stock Exchange.’
who?
Well,there I was in Culross this afternon.
Never been there before.
And there’s a bust of the heid of Lord Cochrane.
Who am I to judge?
They were at it then, the del boys.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/section/15
Contempt of Court Act 1981
Penalties for contempt of court in Scottish proceedings.
(1)In Scottish proceedings, when a person is committed to prison for contempt of court the committal shall (without prejudice to the power of the court to order his earlier discharge) be for a fixed term.
(2)The maximum penalty which may be imposed by way of imprisonment or fine for contempt of court in Scottish proceedings shall be two years’ imprisonment or a fine or both, except that
JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 10, 2017 at 22:42
I agree with you, uth, that on the practical level, there is nothing to stop a pillar of the establishment, already hugely accommodated by two Banks, and nicely carving out some prime development sites in Edinburgh (” planning permission Sir David? Why, of course!Most happy to oblige”) exercising his financial skills in the finance world in a way that the present Board of RIFC plc cannot do, to raise the dough to take over (at no personal risk, of course).
The Supreme Court ruled that David Murray had put in place a tax avoidance scheme which had operated unlawfully. That scheme was the rock upon which the old Rangers perished. By now you would have expected that David Murray would have been banned sine die from Scottish football by the SFA, just like Craig Whyte was. Yet despite Whyte being found innocent by a Criminal Court the SFA chose once again only to publicly go after him. Nothing has been said by the SFA about Murray despite the horrendous damage he did to the old Rangers and Scottish football. It seems clear to me that if Murray was willing to take over at Ibrox, and could bring some establishment friends along with him, the SFA would roll out the red carpet and provide a guard of honour.
Minty returning to Sevconia is probably possible, due to the previously mentioned reasons, but I can’t help but feel it may be a much larger catalyst for action than “No to Newco” ever was. For this reason alone I doubt it will go further than wishful thinking.
Easy J……..Word has reached my ears that you have been moonlighting, and are now to be referred to as. “JJ’s archive”…
Corrupt official October 11, 2017 at 09:02 Easy J……..Word has reached my ears that you have been moonlighting, and are now to be referred to as. “JJ’s archive”…
===========================
It’s not the first time he has used my “archive” as a source, and it won’t be the last, of that I’m certain.
But rather than call him out for plagiarism, I’ll just satisfy myself that “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”.
As an aside, JJ does occasionally come up with real exclusives. It’s just disappointing that he seems reluctant to cooperate with other like minded bampots in actually sharing information.
If David Murray was to become the major shareholder in RIFC PLC do you think the SMSM would revert to calling “Auchenhowie / The Rangers Training Centre” Murray Park.
It is what it’s actually called after all.
Homunculus,
You asked yesterday who the strategic creditor in a threatened action might be. Now you have the answer – (S)DM or anyone else for that matter buys the privilege. In so doing a current creditor gets their debt paid. Others (including the strategic purchaser) will fall to the CVA sword also potentially making their shares worthless depending on the debt structure. That’s where the trust issue between current strategic shareholders and loan providers comes in.
On a side note, whilst not my original source (look where its from FFS) my understanding of Fergus’ takeover that I referred to yesterday is covered here.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/fergus-mccanns-battle-save-celtic-3013568
The key part, ignoring the guarantee section for the moment as its immaterial, is actually the bit in the middle of the David Low extract you provided where David appears to suggest that he had to convince Fergus to make some payment to the Board Members. Fergus, it appears, wanted to give them zip en route to securing (I think) 51% prior to the floatation.
That’s the similarity I was referring to yesterday which can only come about once the company’s own cash is gone. If the target company is making a loss, has no access to credit and the shareholders are no longer willing to fund it something has to happen, just like Celtic in 94. The status quo is no longer available. Those in control, particularly those that are creditors as is usually the case that want the biggest proportional repayment and even more so if they expect to be involved post-buyout tend to be the ones that jump first, not last.
Trust, Trust, Trust. And I’ve a feeling its in short supply down Ibrox way just now just now.
Finally, I can’t help thinking (S)DM or any other newbie won’t risk the liquidation route a la JJ this morning? They’d be too exposed to the other club’s feelings on this? I would have expected a debt write down, via admin if required, to allow a solvent transfer guaranteeing them a Premiership place Shirley? Or worst case scenario relegation due to the points deduction a la Hearts.
SmugasOctober 11, 2017 at 11:23
Finally, I can’t help thinking (S)DM or any other newbie won’t risk the liquidation route a la JJ this morning? They’d be too exposed to the other club’s feelings on this? I would have expected a debt write down, via admin if required, to allow a solvent transfer guaranteeing them a Premiership place Shirley? Or worst case scenario relegation due to the points deduction a la Hearts.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think that is the most likely route. If it was to be achieved via an insolvency event I agree the backlash from supporters (Rangers included) would be severe but admin may not be necessary to remove the debt. It is worthless at the moment and I’m sure some sort of debt write off/equity conversion could be agreed.
However, forgive my naivette but surely the backlash from other clubs about letting SDM back into football would also be severe given his previous acts of crashing a club, tax avoidance etc which to all intents and purposes is still a live issue for the SFA/SPFL and remains unresolved and open to legal challenge.
I suspect there are also significant numbers of Rangers fans who don’t want him back either as they’ve been fleeced once to often already and if SDM buys TRFC it still needs in excess of £30m “investment” to make it competitive again. No prizes for guessing that OPM will be the source of that finance.
woodsteinOctober 11, 2017 at 01:29
‘…Penalties for contempt of court in Scottish proceedings..’
_______________________
Just in the passing , woodstein, I have been trying to read up on ‘contempt of court’.
I think, if my reading is correct, that although the offence of contempt of court can carry a jail sentence on conviction, civil contempt is not a crime.
And that means, apparently, that if DK were disobey an order by the Court of Session to comply with the TAP order to offer to buy all the shares in RIFC plc that he does not already own, and (eventually) gets done for ‘contempt’, he can sit in South Africa and give two fingers to the Court with impunity, because civil contempt is NOT an extraditable offence.
Chances are that he knows this, and is prepared to accept that he might not be able ever to visit the UK without fear of being arrested rather than run the risk of having to pay out millions .
Bogs,
one might even speculate that the very possibility was being float tested just now just to assess reaction.
I couldnt comment.
Ok, I will. Boy would be mad to come anywhere near it. But then that doesn’t necessarily rule it out does it?
SMUGASOCTOBER 11, 2017 at 11:23 1 0 Rate This
Homunculus,You asked yesterday who the strategic creditor in a threatened action might be. Now you have the answer – (S)DM or anyone else for that matter buys the privilege.
====================================
In a totally hypothetical World, where he wants to buy debt, to then maybe get control of a loss making business, with customers who despise him, after having given evidence under oath that his tax avoidance scheme allowed them to get players they couldn’t afford otherwise.
The man who did everything he could to get out of it in the first place.
I’m afraid I will just have to continue agreeing to disagree.
On your “Fergus” analogy. He saw a viable business, because there were loads of ways to make money. Including getting an additional 50,000 people paying to go through the gates every week, with the additional merchandising and sponsorship that brought with it.
What can someone do to massively increase the turnover at Rangers, get into Europe. How do they do that, spend loads of money on a new team. David Murray already tried that.
JOHN CLARK
OCTOBER 11, 2017 at 12:40
===============================
I’m not sure that’s the case JC.
As I understand it if someone refuses to do something that they are ordered to do by the Court then they are tried for contempt. Even if the original case related to a civil matter.
I could be wrong of course but that is my understanding.
“Just in the passing , woodstein, I have been trying to read up on ‘contempt of court’.”
———————————————————–
Only one word to describe you JC, indefatigable
http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2017/05/takeover-panel-issues-legal-proceedings-to-compel-rule-9-mandatory-offer-to-acquire-rangers-international-football-club-plc
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/contempt_of_court/
HomunculusOctober 11, 2017 at 13:09
‘…I’m not sure that’s the case JC. ..’
______________________
And you may very well be right!
I’m basing my opinion on my (very possibly completely wrong )understanding of the judgment to be found on this link
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2012-0143-judgment.pdf
Have a read of paras 34, 37, 38. These seem to me to make the point that civil contempt is not a crime, and since extradition applies only to ‘crimes’, a person guilty of civil contempt may not be extradited.
( but, of course, if, as in this case, a person is extradited for other crimes, the fact that he had been been found guilty of civil contempt before he fled the jurisdiction can be dealt with, if he happens to have been extradited for other reasons and is back in the jurisdiction)
woodsteinOctober 11, 2017 at 14:04
‘..Only one word to describe you ..’
____________
Not having to run around all day after four grandkids leaves me with too much free time and energy!
Mind you, I think I’d rather be in Brisbane knackered and exhausted than trying to read ( or mis-read and mis-interpret!) complex legislation.
God forgive me, but I’m desperate to nail the baddie, or at least understand how the baddies can get away with badness through the inadequacies of the law.
Attach oneself to the coat tails of a currently rampant Celtic as best you can and just wait and pray for the call.
Secret is getting enough mugs to finance the wait. And to resemble something big enough to be relevant.
JC
This may help re contempt
15 Penalties for contempt of court in Scottish proceedings.
(1) In Scottish proceedings, when a person is committed to prison for contempt of court the committal shall (without prejudice to the power of the court to order his earlier discharge) be for a fixed term.
(2) The maximum penalty which may be imposed by way of imprisonment or fine for contempt of court in Scottish proceedings shall be two years’ imprisonment or a fine or both, except that—
(a)where the contempt is dealt with by the sheriff in the course of or in connection with proceedings other than criminal proceedings on indictment, such penalty shall not exceed three months’ imprisonment or a fine of [level 4 on the standard scale] or both; and
(b)where the contempt is dealt with by the district court, such penalty shall not exceed sixty days’ imprisonment or a fine of [level 4 on the standard scale] or both.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/contents