UEFA Club Licensing. – To Comply or not to Comply ?
On 16 April 2018 The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber took decisions in the cases of four clubs that had been referred to it by the CFCB chief investigator, concerning the non-fulfilment of the club licensing criteria defined in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
Such criteria must be complied with by the clubs in order to be granted the licence required to enter the UEFA club competitions.
The cases of two clubs::
Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion Switzerland )
and
FC Irtysh (Kazakhstan)
are of particular interest to those following the events under which the SFA awarded a UEFA License to Rangers FC in 2011 currently under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer because
- The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
- The cases tell us what might have happened to Rangers FC in 2012 had they not gone into liquidation and as a consequence avoided the same type of sanctions that UEFA applied to Sion and Irtysh.
FC Sion (Olympique des Alpes SA)
Here we are told how the Swiss FL and then the UEFA CFCB acted in respect of FC Sion in 2017 where a misleading statement was made in the Sion UEFA licensing application.
Full details can be read at
but this is a summary.
In April 2017 the Swiss FL (SFL) granted a licence to Sion FC but indicated that a Disciplinary case was pending.
In July 2017 the CFCB, as part of their licence auditing programme, carried out a compliance audit on 3 clubs to determine if licences had been properly awarded. Sion was one of those clubs.
The subsequent audit by Deloitte LLP discovered Sion had an overdue payable on a player, amounting to €950,000, owed to another football club (FC Sochaux ) at 31st March 2017 as a result of a transfer undertaken by Sion before 31st December 2016, although the €950,000 was paid in early June 2017.
Deloitte produced a draft report of their findings that was passed to SFL and Sion for comment on factual accuracy and comment on the findings. Sion responded quickly enabling Deloitte to present a final report to the CFCB Investigation Unit. In response to the Deloitte final report Sion stated:
“il apparaît aujourd’hui qu’il existait bel et bien un engagement impayé découlant d’une activité de transfert. Ce point est admis” translated as
“it now appears that there was indeed an outstanding commitment arising from transfer activity. This is admitted”
What emerged as the investigation proceeded was that the Swiss FL Licensing Committee, after granting the license in April and as a result of a Sochaux complaint of non-payment to FIFA, had reason to refer Sion’s application to their Disciplinary Commission in May 2017 with regard to the submission of potentially misleading information by FC Sion to the SFL on 7th April 2017 as part of its licensing documentation.
Sion had declared
“Written confirmation: no overdue payables arising from transfer activities”, signed by the Club’s president, stating that as at 31 March 2017 there were no overdue payables towards other football clubs. In particular, the Club indicated that the case between FC Sion and FC Sochaux regarding the transfer of the player Ishmael Yartey was still under dispute.
The SFL Disciplinary Commission came to the conclusion that FC Sion had no intention to mislead the SFL, but indeed submitted some incorrect licensing documentation; the SFL Disciplinary Commission further confirmed that the total amount of €950,000 had been paid by the Club to FC Sochaux on 7 June 2017. Because of the inaccurate information submitted, the SFL Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine of CHF 8,000 on the Club.
Whilst this satisfied the SFL Disciplinary process the CFCB deemed it not enough to justify the granting of the licence as UEFA intended their FFP rules to be applied.
Sion provided the CFCB with a number of reasons on the basis of which no sanction should be imposed. In particular, the Club admitted that there was an overdue payable as at 31 March 2017, but stated that the mistake in the document dated 7 April 2017 was the result of a misinterpretation by the club’s responsible person for dealing with the licence (the “Club’s licence manager”), who is not a lawyer. The Club affirmed that it never had the intention to conceal the information and had provisioned the amount due for payment and that, in any case, it has already been sanctioned by the SFL for providing the wrong information.
The CFCB Investigation Unit accepted that the Sion application, although inaccurate, was a one off misrepresentation and not a forgery, (as in intended to deceive ) but that nevertheless an overdue payable did exist at 31st March and a licence should not have been granted.
Based on their findings, the CFCB Chief Investigator decided to refer the case to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber and suggested a disciplinary measure to be imposed on FC Sion by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, such measure consisting of a fine of €235,000, corresponding to the UEFA Revenues the Club gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
The CFCB Investigatory Chamber submitted that it was appropriate to impose a fine corresponding to all the UEFA revenues the Club gained by participating in the competition considering the fact that FC Sion should not have been admitted to the competition for failing to meet one of its admission criteria.
The Adjudicatory Chambers took all the circumstances (see paras 91 to 120 at http://tiny.cc/i8sxsy ) into consideration and reached the following key decisions.
- FC Sion failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 49(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the SFL not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
- To exclude FC Sion from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next two (2) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19 and 2019/20).
- To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
- FC Sion is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings.
Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.
It is now public knowledge that an actual liability of tax due before 31stDecember 2010 towards HMRC, was admitted by Rangers FC before 31st March 2011.
This liability was described as “potential” in Rangers Interim accounts audited by Grant Thornton.
“Note 1: The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has also been included within the interest charge.”
The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:
Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.
Which was not true as the liability had already been “developed” so could not be potential.
This was repeated by Chairman Alistair Johnson in his covering Interim Accounts statement
“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. “ where he also added
“Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”
This could be taken as disputing the liability but In fact the resolution to the assessments raised would have been payment of the actual liability, something that never happened.
In the Sion case it was accepted the misleading statement was a one off misrepresentation, but at the monitoring stages at June 2011 in Ranger’s case the status of the liability continued to be misrepresented and in September the continuing discussions reason was repeated, along with a claim of an instalment paid whose veracity is highly questionable.
The Swiss FL Licensing Committee did at least refer the case to their Disciplinary Committee when they realised a misleading statement might have been made. The SFA however in August 2011, when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox for payment of the overdue tax , did no such thing and pulled up the drawbridge for six years, one that the Compliance Officer is now finally charged with lowering.
The case of FC Irtysh of Kazakhstan is set out in full at http://tiny.cc/y9sxsy and is a bit more straightforward but is nevertheless useful to compare with events in 2011 in Scotland.
Unlike Rangers FC , FC Irtysh properly disclosed that they had an overdue payable to the Kazakhstan tax authorities at the monitoring point at 30th June 2017. This caused the CFCB Investigatory Unit to seek further information with regard to the position at 31st March
It transpired that Irtysh had declared an overdue payable at 31st March but cited their financial position (awaiting sponsor money) as a reason for non payment to the Kazakhstan FA who accepted it and granted the licence. The outstanding tax was paid in September 2107.
The outcome of the CFCB Investigation was a case put to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber who agreed with the CFCB Investigation Unit that a licence should not have been granted and recommended that Irtysh be fined the equivalent of the UEFA prize money, (that had been withheld in any case whilst CFCB investigated.)
The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber however decided that a fine was not sufficient in sporting deterrent terms and ruled that:
- FC Irtysh failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 50bis(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the FFK not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- To withhold four hundred and forty thousand Euros (€440,000) corresponding to the UEFA revenues FC Irtysh gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
- To exclude FC Irtysh from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons). This sanction is deferred for a probationary period of (3) three years. This exclusion must be enforced in case the Club participates again in a UEFA club competition having not fulfilled the licence criteria required to obtain the UEFA licence in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- FC Irtysh is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings. “
The deferral was because unlike Rangers FC, FC Irtysh had properly disclosed to the licensor the correct & accurate financial information required, so the exclusion was deferred for a probationary period of (3) years.
Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.
From the foregoing it could be deduced that had Rangers FC qualified for the Champions League (or European League) and not gone bust as a result and so not entered liquidation BUT it became public knowledge by 2012 that a licence had been wrongly and possibly fraudulently granted then
- Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
- At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
- The consequences of both would have been as damaging for Rangers survival as the real life consequences of losing to Malmo and Maribor in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and European Leagues.
Karma eh!
Interestingly in the UEFA COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY REPORT 2015 – 2017 , the CFCB investigatory chamber recommended that both the Kazakhstan FA and Swiss FA as licensors
“pay particular attention to the adequate disclosure of the outstanding amounts payable towards other football clubs, in respect of employees and towards social/tax authorities, which must be disclosed separately;
Would the same recommendation apply to the Scottish FA with regard to their performance in 2011 and will the SFA responses thereafter to shareholders in a member club be examined for compliance with best governance practice by the SFA Compliance Officer investigating the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011?
This would be a welcome step in fully restoring trust in the SFA.
Published on 1 hour agoSteve Clarke has reiterated his commitment to Kilmarnock following reports he was approached by Rangers. It was claimed Ibrox chiefs turned their attention to new managerial target Steven Gerrard after receiving a knock-back from Clarke.But the Rugby Park boss – who has faced a constant cycle of speculation linking him to the likes of Gers and the Scotland job since taking over at Killie back in October – insists his focus has never shifted from his current position.Speaking ahead of Saturday’s trip to Hibernian, he said: There was no offer. For me it’s not really a story. I’m happy here at Kilmarnock, I enjoy the work I’m doing and I look forward to next season.
I don’t really think I should be standing here talking about Rangers because it’s not my club. Kilmarnock is the club I’m working for.”Clarke was happy to discuss the form of skipper Kris Boyd, who was this week nominated for PFA Scotland’s player of the year award.The veteran frontman has hit 21 goals in all competitions this term and Clarke believes that is proof the ex-Scotland striker has rediscovered the joy of scoring.Kris has been outstanding since I came to the club,” said Clarke, who has also handed namesake Scott Boyd a new one-year contract.I had a good chat with him on my first day in the building.He was a little bit down and a little bit sad about the way his career was going at that stage.I asked him to give me a few weeks to work with me in training, to see if he enjoyed the way I went about my business and to see if he could rekindle the spirit and the joy of playing football here at Kilmarnock.And I think his performances and goal return since then tells you that he’s managed to find that spark again.It wasn’t my decision on whether he stayed on, it was Kris’ decision. There was no big rallying speech or whatever.It was just me looking at a senior professional that I felt still had something to offer the club and the team.He certainly deserves to be nominated for player of the year and if he could win it, it’d be a remarkable achievement.”Clarke inherited a side bottom of the table when he was appointed but they can take a step closer to securing fifth place if they can see off Neil Lennon’s team at Easter Road.They lead Hearts by nine points with four games remaining and Clarke said: My main concern is consolidating fifth, which would be a remarkable achievement considering where we were in October.It will be tough though. Hibs were excellent last week against Celtic and were worthy winners – but they have been showing they are a good side all season and that’s why Neil is my choice for manager of the year.”
easyJamboApril 27, 2018 at 12:53
scottc April 27, 2018 at 12:47Ah, yes. Those pesky South Africa Exchange Control Regulations==========================It’s funny, but weren’t these exchange controls known about when King announced the offer four weeks ago.I seem to have a recollection that we discussed on SFM that it might be an issue. And that was around the time of Lord Bannatyne’s ruling from December.
___________
I’m sure the naive in such matters, Dave King, will not have thought to factor in Exchange Control Regulations to his plans to satisfy the TOP ruling, it’s not as though he’s moved money out of SA before. He clearly thought that three days after receiving his dividend he would be able to have the money safely deposited in a bank in the UK, otherwise he would have made other arrangements to have the money where it needed to be.
Unless, of course, he’s actually a bit of a conman, and is looking for an excuse not to buy those pesky shares.
Still, like everyone else, I am surprised to learn he hasn’t honoured the commitment he made to his fellow RIFC shareholders.
Hull CityVerified account @HullCity 4h4 hours agoMore | AC: “Contrary to reports, Allan McGregor wasn’t at Rangers yesterday and he hasn’t agreed terms with Rangers – he was here yesterday! The manager had a private conversation with him this morning and nothing happened with Rangers.” #hcafc #UpTheTigers
Christyboy April 27, 2018 at 13:42
————————————-
The text of the advice to shareholders suggests that the TOP is already on the case. I’d guess that they won’t have much patience left, so things may move quite quickly.
” RIFC has been informed by the Takeover Panel that this is a breach of Rule 24.1 of the Code. ”
and ……
“the Panel will take all appropriate steps to seek to ensure that a Code-compliant offer is made”
I wonder if King will decide to give the Celtic game a miss this weekend, just in case he is either arrested or issued with a summons for contempt.
Further to Tony above:
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hull-city-rubbish-claims-allan-1507052
tonyApril 27, 2018 at 13:49
Hull CityVerified account @HullCity 4h4 hours agoMore | AC: “Contrary to reports, Allan McGregor wasn’t at Rangers yesterday and he hasn’t agreed terms with Rangers – he was here yesterday! The manager had a private conversation with him this morning and nothing happened with Rangers.” #hcafc #UpTheTigers
__________________
And worth, I think, comparing what BBC Scotland said yesterday, to what the Hull Daily Mail says today. A wee local newspaper showing the Beeb in Scotland how to be journalists! Ask questions, and never believe PR briefings.
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hull-city-rubbish-claims-allan-1507052
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43907995
Sometimes one just enjoys the light relief.
From “The Mensch”.
“You have a terrific and eloquent set of followers on this site UNLIKE NO OTHER. ”
So, just like everyone else then.
If there were a kicking the can down the road competition Dave King would be World Champion.
However whilst we wait on Sood Effrika deciding to buy into TRFC I’ve resurrected and slightly enhanced a previous post on SFM on the SFA Membership circus of 2012 that I hope corrects any earlier views expressed. The following came as a result of point Hirsute Pursuit made about Sevco’s application for the Full SFA membership of RFC.
HirsutePursuit November 24, 2017 at 23:07 (Edit)
By applying an invented classification (Conditional Membership) to TRFC (Sevco) that would certainly have got around the rule about a Registered SFA Member using a name sounding like Rangers in a match, apart from it signalling two different clubs.
My approach was always on what would have been the normal rules applied, so I had another look taking aboard your point on applying for the transfer of RFC SFA Membership being sufficient to meet the rules and found another reason why a conditional SFA membership had to be invented. I’ll repeat a bit of background from earlier:
In 2012 there were 3 classes of SFA Membership
Registered SFA Membership
Associate SFA Membership
Full SFA Membership.
(That changed in August 2013 to two classes- Registered and Full but it is the 2012 process that applies)
The process for a club obtaining SFA Membership in 2012 was:
A Registered SFA Membership was automatic on gaining an SFL Associate Membership.
To obtain a full SFA Membership under Article 6.3 of SFA Articles :-
A club or association desiring to qualify for full membership of the Scottish FA must first be admitted as an Associate Member.
Thus under normal rules Sevco were not eligible to apply for Full SFA Membership as they did not first have an Associate SFA Membership.
A club joining the SFL without an Associate or Full SFA Membership had to apply for one within 14 days of joining the SFL. The SFL Rules said:
SFL Rule16.
REGISTRATION WITH SFA A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP
A Member or Associate Member (of SFL) who is not already a full or associate
member of the Scottish Football Association (Sevco) must make application to
become a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association (as
the case may be) within fourteen (14) days of being admitted to membership
of the League failing which its membership of the League will lapse, and in
the event that the application is unsuccessful, its membership will lapse
upon that decision being intimated to the League.)
Under SFL 16 Sevco needed to apply for a Full or Associate SFA Membership but they didn’t apply for Associate SFA Membership which they needed in order to apply for a Full SFA Membership.
To get that they needed the Full SFA Membership of Rangers FC transferred to them under the 5 Way Agreement using the discretion allowed under Article 14 of SFA Rules.
So with no application for Associate SFA Membership made with 14 days and not being eligible to apply for Full SFA Membership under normal rules, not having the Associate SFA Membership first, they exceptionally applied for the SFA Membership of Rangers to be transferred under SFA Discretion and on Completion of 5 Way Agreement.
Technically therefore (and this is where the SFA might have had a concern) the Registered SFA Membership elapsed on 28th July because Sevco did not apply for Associate SFA Membership and under normal SFA Rules at the time as a Registered SFA member could not apply for Full SFA Membership until they had applied for and obtained Associate Membership.
The SFA might have argued that the Registered Membership of the SFA was sufficient to allow the Brechin game to go ahead on 29th July, but that would have clearly made Sevco a team/club holding an SFA Membership at the same time as Rangers and using Rangers name or one damn like it. Hence the need for a Conditional Membership for Sevco.
Additionally of course had that 14 day Registered SFA Membership time to apply for an Associate Membership not elapsed, the normal rules to be followed at that time to grant a Full SFA membership meant Sevco/Rangers becoming an Associate SFA Member first and it would have been impossible then to argue or justify an argument that TRFC had been Full SFA Members ever since they first joined the SFA.
They haven’t been, the invented (ultra vires) Conditional Membership broke the Full SFA Membership continuity with RFC myth, but to agree to such a shambles rather than apply the normal rules for SFA Membership as SFA were entitled to do, does suggests that had the SFA and SPL not found a way to give SEVCO/TRFC Full SFA Membership and voting rights in 2012, Green would have walked away.
Perhaps with hindsight everyone wishes he had.
Although:
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hull-city-news-live-tigers-1505603
Just in from a journey and BBC Radio Shortbread was playing in the car.
I switched on to hear Des on Breaking the News and heard two or three “journos” discussing how big a story and bold a move (my words paraphrasing) it was that Rangers had Steven Gerrard.
It lasted ten or so minutes.
I surprisedly assumed by their excitement that the stories we had been being fed were actually true and not just some Season Ticket Sales Scam.
I believed Steven had been appointed.
Des was funny and worth the half hour.
Then the news and no Steven Gerrard is not Rangers manager.
The headline was Graeme Murty wants to keep the job.
What is going on with the “Journos” at BBC Shortbread?
If they were worth their press badges why do they not report the stories they are being fed and ask the obvious questions so that the reports are journalism rather than corporate radio broadcasts.
This little episode (no matter the outcome) shows them all up for what they are and that BBC Shortbread and its journalists are a total disgrace.
Someone should tell or remind them all (especially the editors) them they are a publicly funded organisation who purports to be a source of real news and editorial insight.
Slimjim, Your dissing of Phil does not stand up. The following in recent months were all Phil revelations. NOAL’s non payment of promised cash Alistair Johnstone’s financial input, seeking distress finance prior to Close Brother’s loan, seeking Rangers 1872 funding to get through season. Pretty good contacts remain for Phil inside Ibrox, still.
ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 27, 2018 at 13:49
I’m sure the naive in such matters, Dave King, will not have thought to factor in Exchange Control Regulations to his plans to satisfy the TOP ruling, it’s not as though he’s moved money out of SA before. He clearly thought that three days after receiving his dividend he would be able to have the money safely deposited in a bank in the UK, otherwise he would have made other arrangements to have the money where it needed to be.
Unless, of course, he’s actually a bit of a conman, and is looking for an excuse not to buy those pesky shares.
Still, like everyone else, I am surprised to learn he hasn’t honoured the commitment he made to his fellow RIFC shareholders.
———————————————
Obviously, I am not privy to DCK’s dealings with the South African government & their pesky regulations, but I suspect that DCK/Laird/RIFC thought that the transfer of funds from SA would go through on the nod, particularly since he had previously got their permission to fund (at least partially) NOAL & loan RIFC/TRFC several millions of quid.
There can’t be someone in the Exchange Control hierarchy who’s decided that his dividend should remain in SA for a week or two (or longer, who knows!), just for the pleasure of pressuring DCK a little, could there?
Incidentally, I doubt there will be much government work carried out in SA until the middle of next week.
Today is a Bank Holiday, Freedom Day & next Tuesday is also a holiday, May Day.
ICEMAN63APRIL 27, 2018 at 15:37
Slimjim, Your dissing of Phil does not stand up. The following in recent months were all Phil revelations. NOAL’s non payment of promised cash Alistair Johnstone’s financial input, seeking distress finance prior to Close Brother’s loan, seeking Rangers 1872 funding to get through season. Pretty good contacts remain for Phil inside Ibrox, still.
Iceman your post above is a really interesting insight into the “fake news” culture which is so prevalent in modern society. Phil’s “news” which you are confirming as accurate consists of:
Noal non-payment: There is no evidence this story is accurate.
Johnstone finance: No evidence this is accurate
Seeking distress finance prior to Close: A story Phil has told often, perhaps every 3 months. Could have been true but no evidence it was.
Seeking C1872 funding to get through the season: This is untrue, C1872 are desperately fundraising to try to maintain their position in a future share issue. They seem to be failing in that so doubt they’d be a good choice of lender.
The thing is there is of course a chance all of these stories are true but you can produce no evidence that they are while accepting them without question. We all quite rightly question the MSM, is it healthy to blindly hang on bloggers’ output without holding them to the same scrutiny?
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/04/27/the-liver-squirrel/
It’s Friday , it’s five o’clock , it’s not Crackerjack but must shirley be statement o’clock ? Especially as it’s a bank holiday weekend .
Jingso.JimsieApril 27, 2018 at 15:39
ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 27, 2018 at 13:49I’m sure the naive in such matters, Dave King, will not have thought to factor in Exchange Control Regulations to his plans to satisfy the TOP ruling, it’s not as though he’s moved money out of SA before. He clearly thought that three days after receiving his dividend he would be able to have the money safely deposited in a bank in the UK, otherwise he would have made other arrangements to have the money where it needed to be.Unless, of course, he’s actually a bit of a conman, and is looking for an excuse not to buy those pesky shares.Still, like everyone else, I am surprised to learn he hasn’t honoured the commitment he made to his fellow RIFC shareholders.———————————————Obviously, I am not privy to DCK’s dealings with the South African government & their pesky regulations, but I suspect that DCK/Laird/RIFC thought that the transfer of funds from SA would go through on the nod, particularly since he had previously got their permission to fund (at least partially) NOAL & loan RIFC/TRFC several millions of quid.There can’t be someone in the Exchange Control hierarchy who’s decided that his dividend should remain in SA for a week or two (or longer, who knows!), just for the pleasure of pressuring DCK a little, could there?
________________________
I have to admit, I was unaware that any of his money ‘invested’ in TRFC had come directly from SA, didn’t most come from Hong Kong and/or the Channel Islands?
My own opinion is that he knew he would have this difficulty, and was depending on it to ensure he didn’t have to part with any of his Micromega dividend because he doesn’t want to put any more unrecoverable money (in the way of shares as opposed to loans) into TRFC, in line with his way, of business and as a bear, he likes to have someone else to blame for his own shortcomings. See these South African Treasury people, they’re all a bunch of Rainjurs haters
I don’t know anything about south African Exchange Control and what criteria they would use to allow £11m or so to leave their shore as an investment abroad, but I’d imagine they would look for investments that are likely to result in the money returning at some stage, by way of dividends or increased share value. The point of Exchange Control is to keep money within the country, not to give individuals the opportunity to stash it away with no chance of it returning.
There we have it.
https://t.co/4o4aFVBjyG
A charlatan and a mountebank.
How could Dave King possibly have known that there were rules in South Africa about moving funds to other jurisdictions.
He must be just as shocked and disappointed as everyone else at this unexpected turn of events.
PADDY MALARKEYAPRIL 27, 2018 at 17:01
3
1 Rate This
It’s Friday , it’s five o’clock , it’s not Crackerjack but must shirley be statement o’clock ? Especially as it’s a bank holiday weekend .
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/16190334.Dave_King__breaches_takeover_rules__by_failing_to_make___11m_Rangers_shares_bid_by_deadline/
————
must be
GiorgioVasariApril 27, 2018 at 17:47
There we have it. https://t.co/4o4aFVBjyGA charlatan and a mountebank.
________________________
What if ‘official approval…not yet been given’ actually means ‘refused’? Something I am sure is likely to happen to a request to export a sum of £11m, quite often, especially when the ‘investment’ can’t possibly be seen as advantageous to South African trade or commerce, in any possible way.
ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 27, 2018 at 18:36
=================================
I’d like to move £11m out of South Africa
Purpose?
To buy shares.
How much profit does this business make?
None, it loses millions every year.
Does it carry any debt?
Currently about £20m, £7m or so of which is to me. But that is rising all the time.
Do you have any other commitment to it?
Yes I already own 15% personally and am part of a concert party that owns about 35% in total. And I have pledged a further £3m in loans next year.
Do you have any friends in Hong Kong, that might be simpler.
That was brilliant.
King owed the South African taxman R2.7 billion [around £149,162,500]and settled with SARS to the tune of R700 million [around £38,671,759}
The South African businessman was also found guilty of 41 counts of contravening section 75 of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962, in South Africa. He was fined around £200,000 or face two years in jail.
——
hat tip to scotzineon December 21, 2014
————–
Was there not also conditions to how much Mr king was allowed to move out of SA at one time
The Steven Gerrard thing reminds me of the Bill Miller episode for some reason.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-in-crisis-the-key-questions-all-rangers-877079
————-
You could almost just replace Bill millers name with Steven Gerrard.
In the end it was reported it was the fans that just did not want him.
If anyone is interested in the
http://www.money-transfers.co.za/south-africa-exchange-control.php
How do exchange control regulations effect me?
For individuals the South African exchange control regulations dictates how much and under what circumstances you may transfer money out of South Africa. It should be noted that the exchange control regulations apply to South African residents, not citizens or permanent residence holders. Therefore if you are considered a resident for exchange control purposes, they are applicable to you. Residency is defined in a number of different ways and expert opinion as to your circumstances should be sought from a company such as ours.
Permissible reasons for transfers abroad include:
Monetary gifts and loans.Donations to missionaries.Maintenance transfers.Travel allowance.Study allowance.R 1 million foreign capital allowance.R10 million individual capital allowance.
For companies any payments that need to be made to a foreign party are covered by the regulations. Similar in effect to personal transfers abroad companies are required to justify why they need to remit money to a foreign party and seek approval form the Reserve Bank or where empowered the authorised dealer. Exchange control regulations cover all payments and investment abroad made by a company, and loans made by overseas investors to a South African resident.
King’s plea deal with their government was that he “repatriate” all his monies back to the country … the idea that they would allow him to move such a huge sum was virtually a non-starter.
———-
That is the one i was thinking of.
—————
https://thecelticblog.com/2018/04/blogs/the-takeover-panel-has-confirmed-that-dave-king-is-again-in-breach-of-their-regulations/
This might sound a bit daft, but I wonder if any of our intrepid hacks have thought to ask the SFA if they are monitoring the situation, or if they have sought any information from Sevco regarding their PLC department.
It may be also worthwhile asking them what steps or precautions are available to them with regards protecting one of their member clubs, whose PLC is in breach of CoS orders, resulting from a hostile takeover conspiracy, and whose chairman may be subject to contempt of court charges.
As a supplementary question, to have in reserve, I would suggest, “WTF is the point of having you”?
To be fair on Dave King, if some theories are to be believed he risked his very liberty to come to the UK to be present at his team’s big cup semi final. Their last chance of silverware this season. That’s dedication to a football team.
I have visited Anfield as well, there’s not a lot of legroom if you are taller than average.
NICK APRIL 27 16.20
Thank you.
You saved me the need to reply.
Its been very quiet on here today despite my mischief.
So I’m going over to my forums. Slimjim, DBD, Lawman, you are the wee cheekie ones. So get on here. The theme is EVITA, David Essex, Julie Covington, ALW Etc.
Love and Peace.
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 27, 2018 at 20:00
To be fair on Dave King, if some theories are to be believed he risked his very liberty to come to the UK to be present at his team’s big cup semi final.
———————————————————————————–
Happy to be corrected Homunculus, but would it not be the case that the courts would need to be informed of the breach in an official capacity?, (i.e. By TOP returning to court),before they could rule on any issues.
St. Mirren were playing in Paisley at the time. Frank Mack was playing , Mind?
easyJamboApril 27, 2018 at 12:53
‘…but weren’t these exchange controls known about when King announced the offer four weeks ago..’
_______________
King and his advisers would certainly have known that he would require permission to shift money.
Perhaps he deliberately did not seek permission, knowing that that might buy him time and perhaps make sure that when he does apply, permission would be refused because of South Africa’s knowledge of him.
Maybe he’s daft enough to think that he might be let off the hook of having to make the offer ,using the ‘exceptional circumstances’ possibility mentioned by the Inner House to explain that, although willing to make the offer, he is prevented by force majeure ( in the shape of the South Africa authorities) from doing so!
If he does think that, then he would surely get a rude awakening, because the two State authorities (the UK treasury and the SA equivalent) would jointly act to sort him out. SA would be persuaded to grant him permission, and if King did not make the offer, it’s off to the pokey with him!
Jimbo, was it Richard Thompson 59 Vincent Black Lightning/RedHaired Molly?
Never mind the trolls, Phil, keep at ’em!
SARS took everything from King. Plane, cars, vino, everything ‘he’ owned. He told the court that he was skint and NOAL was not his, but his families. He told Sevco shareholders that he controlled NOAL and that they’d be weighing in big time. He told the Sevco Board that he could get the family (NOAL) to okay cash for the shareoffer.
This guy alone – never mind the rest of the chancers which have passed through the hall of shame in recent years – has brought Scottish football into disrepute on a weekly basis for months now. His threatening statements against other member clubs, his shadow chairmanship, his lies… As someone else asked, – just what is the point of the SFA?
And out of this suppurating blight on Scottish football some folk have the brass neck to point an accusing finger at a blogger from Donegal. It’s hilarious. You’ve dined out on the ‘tarred with a sectarian brush’ (The Sun!) for long enough, lads. He nailed you.
So.
They didn’t have the balls to approach Steve Clarke or Jack Ross. As would be the sensible approach. But they instinctively knew the retort.
They may have given Steven Gerrard something to ponder. Here’s hoping.
It’s lose, lose.
But it could make for an interesting season ahead. If he does.
Here’s hoping.
as you were……
Excuse me for interrupting.
I care not a dot whether the laddy Gerrard becomes the future manager of TRFC nor not!!!
Please keep this blog about multi football issues and nothing to do with ABBA
SJ, Stop bothering about Phil. Mac. Be your own man. You are wrong on so many counts, but give a good argument at times.
Where are your agreements?
STIFFLERSMUM APRIL 27 22.40.
Not quite sure where you’re coming from. The easy decision would have been to approach either SC or JR as they are the current flavor of the month. You don’t know if they would have accepted/declined had Rangers made an approach. SC denied any contact having being made despite the Daily Record’s pathetic attempt to put a negative slant on the clubs pursuit of Steven Gerrard.
I’ve given myself the thumbs down. I missed the obvious.
Contempt..lation.
Clarke & Ross; the sugar free interns.
Why not Lennon? Arguably the best manager in the league. Some may argue; but argue all the same.
West Coast instinct & perpetual pessimism reigns.
Bitterness will always blind them.
Slim.
Phil’s posts are seminal. Buy them, only after you’ve evaluated them.
Phil never prints the untruth. He’s got a reasonable track record; plus he believes in whatever he prints.
just sometimes, he prints more than he knows. (Always be suspicious of those who pretend to know it all).
Slim, make a case with plausible candidates. Goram, Ferguson & J Brown?
‘da fortitudinem’
error post
As Nick said earlier today, no one should be exempt from scrutiny – even those with whom we generally agree. That goes for the MSM, and anyone with blogs, and particularly those which are, like Phil’s, widely read and influential.
I’ve remarked often that kite-flying is a cross-party sport, and we need to avoid giving any of it extra wind.
However when a poster sets out on a personal campaign of criticism against another blogger- like Phil or JJ- my advice is to toddle along to the appropriate site and make your point there.
Exception being of course if the blogger in question is directly hostile to either this blog or individuals within it. Rebuttal is ok for that purpose.
The person involved in this has over the past few days given us a valuable fill of the alternative viewpoint. The nuances of SFM etiquette may be a steep learning curve at times. I hope that’s all it is.
Meanwhile, earth to planet Jimbo: get a grip with the OT stuff. You have places for that material. Please use it.
We’ve asked for your cooperation, but next stop is moderation.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/04/27/managerial-machinations-and-unpaid-bills/
Sorry.
I think Scott Allan should stay at Hibs. He’s too good a player to be a fringe player or benchman. Good luck to him.
Looks like a naughty boy may be on his way back to Glasgow!
For those not wishing to click on the link,story is he’s been sacked for urinating in a hotel fountain.
“RANGERS misfit Carlos Pena has sensationally been sacked by Cruz Azul due to ‘alcohol abuse’ after he was caught urinating in a fountain in his team’s hotel.”
“Sources in Mexico have revealed that Cruz are able to terminate the loan deal early because they had certain clauses regarding his behaviour inserted into it, which Pena has broken.”
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/2567567/rangers-carlos-pena-sacked-cruz-azul-alcohol-urinating-fountain/
Can I possibly buck what appears to be a trend and suggest that Steven Gerrard accepting the job as Rangers’ manager may not be a bad thing for Scottish football.
I have heard nothing to suggest that he and Brendan Rodgers had anything other than an amicable relationship and from the perspective of excessive animosity that would surely be a good thing.
If the Rangers’ support took to him then surely they would follow that example, at least in part, and may even eschew paddling in the blood of others. Particularly if their own manager would be one of the donors.
Personally, I couldn’t give a flying fork whether Steven Gerrard becomes the new Ibrox club’s new manager, whether Carlos Pena comes back to take the pi$$ winding down the last two years of his alleged £20k per week contract, or whether Scott Arfield becomes the latest big-money signing by a club whose annual accounts show they can’t afford him.
Because all the time we spend laughing at the circus that is Rangers*, we normalise their situation and ignore the bigger picture that is the corrupt actions of a corrupt set of football authorities who still, six years later, get away with the biggest swindle in Scottish football history.
HighlanderApril 28, 2018 at 10:25
‘…Because all the time we spend laughing at the circus that is Rangers*, we normalise their situation and ignore the bigger picture that is the corrupt actions of a corrupt set of football authorities who still, six years later, get away with the biggest swindle in Scottish football history.’
_________________
You give us a timely reminder, Highlander, that the heart of Scottish Football is rotten, and instead of the rot being tackled, there has been insistent, unrelenting pressure from the bad guys to get us simply to accept the wrongdoing that was done by the 5-way agreement AND by the continuing propagation of the myth that TRFC Ltd are entitled to claim the name and sporting honours and titles of the liquidated RFC.
In the absence of any action by the SFA to strip the nonsense and deceit out of our Sport, it is not surprising that many people seize on TRFC Ltd/RIFC plc’s financial difficulties in the hope they will become so overwhelming that the club will go the same way as RFC(IL).
But of course, it is much more important that the rotten wood in the tree of our football governance be cut off and thrown on the fire.
Otherwise, there might be a recrudescence of the same pattern of deceit and abandonment of Sporting Integrity.
TORREJOHNBHOYAPRIL 28, 2018 at 09:18
Looks like a naughty boy may be on his way back to Glasgow!
——————————————————————————
I don’t believe it….A Sevco player giving the p*ss .
Corrupt officialApril 28, 2018 at 11:01
1
0 Rate This
TORREJOHNBHOYAPRIL 28, 2018 at 09:18 Looks like a naughty boy may be on his way back to Glasgow! —————————————————————————— I don’t believe it….A Sevco player giving the p*ss .
——————————————————
Just a thought.Anyone thing TRFC may use this as an excuse to try & sack Pena.They’ll not be wanting to pay him a rumoured £26k a week for another 2 years.
HOMUNCULUS
APRIL 28, 2018 at 09:56
Can I possibly buck what appears to be a trend and suggest that Steven Gerrard accepting the job as Rangers’ manager may not be a bad thing for Scottish football.
———————————————
It was only a week or so ago that some TRFC ultras were alleging that RIFC/TRFC had too many ‘Celtic-minded’ (whatever that means) people on the staff & in the boardroom.
This is where TRFC find themselves, in no small measure due their WATP/RRM insecurities:
They need to appoint a football manager who can do the virtually-impossible. Be competitive on the field, immediately, with CFC. Unite what seems to be a fractured dressing-room. Work within a very tight budget. That manager needs to be acceptable to the fans. That manager needs to have no baggage/heritage that will make him an easy target.
Does such a person exist, outwith the minds of the Louden Fantasists? Could it be Mr. Gerrard? Could he carry it off?
I doubt it.
torrejohnbhoyApril 28, 2018 at 11:25
Corrupt officialApril 28, 2018 at 11:0110 Rate ThisTORREJOHNBHOYAPRIL 28, 2018 at 09:18 Looks like a naughty boy may be on his way back to Glasgow! —————————————————————————— I don’t believe it….A Sevco player giving the p*ss . ——————————————————Just a thought.Anyone thing TRFC may use this as an excuse to try & sack Pena.They’ll not be wanting to pay him a rumoured £26k a week for another 2 years.
___________
That was my first thought on reading about his display of integrity, TJB, and I would be very surprised if they’ve not got their lawyers working hard to come up with a way to do it. If they can, it will actually save them money (TRFC’s share of his wage while on loan). On the other hand, if they can’t get rid of him, what a burden he will be.
James Doleman on Twitter, who has a lot of experience of covering court cases, says no-one gets ‘locked up’ for failing to comply with a civil court order. Seems to me King can do what he likes, and appears to be doing just that.
Punishment for Civil Contempt of Court vs. Criminal Contempt of Court
Unlike criminal contempt sentences, which aim to punish the act of contempt, civil contempt sanctions aim to either: (1) restore the rights of the party who was wronged by the failure to satisfy the court’s order; or (2) simply move an underlying proceeding along. Civil contempt sanctions typically end when the party in contempt complies with the court order, or when the underlying case is resolved.
Like those charged with criminal contempt, the court may order incarceration of people held in civil contempt. However, unlike individuals charged with criminal contempt, people held in civil contempt are generally not given the same constitutional rights that are guaranteed to criminal contempt defendants.
Those held in civil contempt generally must be given notice of the contempt sanctions and an opportunity to be heard, but usually are not guaranteed a jury trial. Also, their contempt does not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while criminal contempt charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, criminal contempt involves a specified sentence (jail and/or fine), while civil contempt sanctions can be more indefinite, lasting until either the underlying case is resolved or the party in contempt complies with the court order.
https://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/civil-contempt-of-court.html
UPTHEHOOPS
APRIL 28, 2018 at 13:04
===================================
Apologies but I find it very difficult to believe that the Court of Session can make an order with no effective remedy if the person refuses to comply with it.
From the RIFC statement:
“Meantime, the Takeover Panel has asked RIFC to advise shareholders that the panel will take all appropriate steps to seek to ensure that a code-compliant offer is made as soon as possible.”
Might we be about to witness the famous, “Cold Shoulder”? Must be about time for it to make an appearance one would have thought.
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 28, 2018 at 13:24
Apologies but I find it very difficult to believe that the Court of Session can make an order with no effective remedy if the person refuses to comply with it.
=======================
No need to apologise. I am puzzled as well. However it does look like King is being allowed to string them along. On the evening of the very last day he has to comply with the offer he issues a statement saying he is trying to get the money out of South Africa…and very conveniently South Africa may say no due to his previous over there!
King’s status as Chairman of ‘Rangers’ seems to make him exempt from any media scrutiny whatsoever. That is the same media one of whom recently chased Dermot Desmond in the street outside Celtic Park to challenge him about a non-Celtic related matter regarding tax arrangements in another country. What makes King so special that they don’t even bother about him ignoring a court order?
MACFURGLY
APRIL 28, 2018 at 13:42
===============================
On the “cold shoulder” what sort of thing would it potentially effect, for example would it cause problems with
Obtaining loans / overdraft facilities.
Credit Card payments, for example season tickets purchases.
Credit facilities for season tickets (monthly payments)
The potential share issue / converting loans to equity.
macfurgly
April 28, 2018 at 13:42 ——————————————-
Re the cold shoulder.
For the TOP the ultimate aim of their action to enforce the offer of 20p per share is to protect the interests of those shareholders that did not form part of the concert party.
The TOP can read the accounts of TRIFC as well as the rest of us and will understand just how much of a precarious position they are in. Application of the cold shoulder could be the final straw that pushes the company into insolvency wiping out the value of everyone’s shares. For that reason I don’t see the TOP using the cold shoulder option. Not unless they were confident that they could still force DCK to make the offer for shares that were now demonstrably worthless.
I suppose Pena’s agent / family should get him into rehab ASAP.
And whilst acknowledging he has a problem – and seeking required help – TRFC is in no position ‘to resign him’.
…you would think…
Eh , it’s not a bank holiday weekend – outed myself as a non-worker !
HomunculusApril 28, 2018 at 13:24
‘.I find it very difficult to believe that the Court of Session can make an order with no effective remedy if the person refuses to comply with it. ‘
______________
It would be a nonsense, of course. And it is nonsense.
“In general terms: (a) civil contempts consist in disobedience to judgments and court orders; Contempt in connection with civil proceedings is punishable by committal, sequestration or a fine. The procedure in relation to any application for committal or sequestration is, in the civil courts, regulated by CPR Part 81. Part 81 embraces acts or omissions of the following descriptions:
(a) disobedience to a court order;
(b) breach of an undertaking to the court;
(c) making a false statement of truth (CPR 32.14);
(d)…
……Both criminal and civil contempts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt ”
This is from a UK source ,not American.
As far as I can make out (there’s lots of bumph and cross-referencing!) but it seems that there is no doubt that civil contempt can be punished by imprisonment: the person would be charged with a crime in the ordinary way, and he would be entitled to plead not guilty and the case against him would have to be proved.
At least that would be the case in England.It’s hard to imagine that our courts would not have the same powers.
As ever, I’m open to correction.
My source is lexusnexus but I can’t paste the link it’s too long.
HomunculusApril 28, 2018 at 14:32
———
My best shot is this:
The TOP may refer King in this case to the appropriate regulatory authority, the FCA:
http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/code.pdf?v=8Jan2018
“The rules of the FCA and certain professional bodies oblige their members, in certain circumstances, not to act for the person in question in a transaction subject to the Code, including a dealing in relevant securities requiring disclosure under Rule 8 (so called “cold-shouldering”)”.
The link below refers to a particular case, in which two individuals were “Cold Shouldered” for 6 years and 2 years.
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/statement-on-takeover-panel-cold-shouldering.pdf
“‘Coldshouldering’ effectively means that no FCA-regulated entity can act for these individuals on any transaction subject to the Takeover Code”.
The advice to firms on what this involves exactly is here,
https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/MAR/4/3.html
and includes,
“(1) Where a restriction under MAR 4.3.1 R applies, among other things the firm is prevented from carrying on any designated investment business activity, or communicating or approving any financial promotion, in connection with a transaction to which the Takeover Code applies”.
My best understanding of this would be that firms would be prevented from acting for King in any share dealing related to the Takeover Code, but the pies and Bovril at Ibrox are probably secure.
Others on here may be able to shed a brighter light.
I have said this before, but it likely passed without much notice.
TOP “cold-shouldering” applies for a time decided by them, and only “to transactions that fall under the Takeover Code”.
It is not nearly as wide-ranging sanction as some would like to believe. What it would do is stop any person regulated by the FCA from acting on behalf of the cold-shouldered person in a takeover or merger.
So, no takeovers or mergers, in the UK. Aside from reputational damge, that’s it.
I can’t imagine King is too worried by that.
ANGUS1983
APRIL 28, 2018 at 15:32
=====================================
So it’s pretty pointless then.
my previous post:
http://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/allhere
@TINCKS 1448:
A couple of takeaways from your comment, if I may…
The TOP’s action is against an individual, DCK. Any sanctions are against him and him alone. The board of RIFC is aware of the TOP’s actions and should be limiting the potential collateral damage to RIFC by any legal means available. That is what a responsible, functioning board would do.
Also, to suggest that any sanctions imposed by the TOP would contribute to an insolvency event seems wrong to me. It is the role of the directors to ensure that the business is being run in a correct manner. The group chairman of RIFC is a problem. That should be addressed by the other members of the board. They seem unwilling to do so. That may become an issue in the very near future. It is their inability to ‘handle/manage’ DCK that may bring the company down. Perhaps they should consider Warburtoning him?
JINGSO.JIMSIE
APRIL 28, 2018 at 17:15
Whilst I agree that the TOP actions are against DCK and him alone, as part of the compulsory share purchase he has to provide a “code-compliant offer document” which includes a detailed financial report and accounts. DCK will have no input or control over this document. When it leaks out into the wide world, which it will, it will prove very difficult for the directors of RIFC as all their negotiating weakness will be exposed.
JOHN CLARKAPRIL 28, 2018 at 15:13
HomunculusApril 28, 2018 at 13:24‘.I find it very difficult to believe that the Court of Session can make an order with no effective remedy if the person refuses to comply with it. ‘______________It would be a nonsense, of course. And it is nonsense.
“In general terms: (a) civil contempts consist in disobedience to judgments and court orders; Contempt in connection with civil proceedings is punishable by committal, sequestration or a fine. The procedure in relation to any application for committal or sequestration is, in the civil courts, regulated by CPR Part 81. Part 81 embraces acts or omissions of the following descriptions:(a) disobedience to a court order;(b) breach of an undertaking to the court;(c) making a false statement of truth (CPR 32.14);(d)………Both criminal and civil contempts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt ”
This is from a UK source ,not American.
As far as I can make out (there’s lots of bumph and cross-referencing!) but it seems that there is no doubt that civil contempt can be punished by imprisonment:the person would be charged with a crime in the ordinary way, and he would be entitled to plead not guilty and the case against him would have to be proved.At least that would be the case in England.It’s hard to imagine that our courts would not have the same powers.As ever, I’m open to correction.My source is lexusnexus but I can’t paste the link it’s too long.
__________________
While there might be technicalities we are unaware of that might make proving his contempt of court not as straight forward as we might think, I’d still suggest the court records and the lack of an offer as required would make it pretty much a slam dunk; though in true Dave King style, I am sure he’d drag it through as many appeals as he could.
I wonder, too, if lying to the court over his impecuniosity might prove disadvantageous to him, and encourage the court to throw the heaviest book they can find at him. All assuming he returns to this country to answer any summons in the first place.
As has been said earlier, I too am of the opinion the TOP will try their best to ‘encourage’ King’s compliance, so as to give the other shareholders the best opportunity to avail themselves of King’s 20 pences. The problem comes if King doesn’t ever comply, and, kicked off the board (that might remove the effects of his cold shoulder) he takes the huff and calls in his loans along with any that are connected to him.
To maintain their own effectiveness, the TOP must surely only allow a limited amount of time to King to comply before issuing the the cold shoulder and allowing things to take their own course.
I have to admit that the possible effect of the cold shoulder on RIFC/TRFC has generally been exaggerated and I’ve tended to expect it to be minimal as, if nothing else, it would hurt the small investors the rule is in place to protect, though it can’t possibly help a company to have him on the board. Even the effect it has on King might not be that great, but he is left with the problem of the court order if he doesn’t comply.
Now I have no better knowledge than anyone else just what punishment might be meted out if he is held in contempt of court, but I do find it hard to imagine that their lordships would just tell him to pay a few thousand pounds in fines while letting him off with cocking a snoot at an order to stump up a possible £11m. The law would really be making an ass of itself, or allowing a conman to do it for them. I can imagine, though, a fine and an order to comply within 30 days, with the threat of a prison sentence if he fails to cough up to encourage him.
TINCKSAPRIL 28, 2018 at 14:48
Application of the cold shoulder could be the final straw that pushes the company into insolvency wiping out the value of everyone’s shares. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Very true TINKS but I imagine there may be an element of ‘pour encourage les autres’ involved. The TOP can not be seen to be impotent in the face of such a flagrant disregard of their rules.So it will be interesting to see how they handle this. I sincerely doubt there is a great deal of sympathy within conventional financial circles for King or indeed the unfortunate shareholders who could be casualties of war here.