To Comply or not to Comply ?

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

  1. The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
  2. 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

http://tiny.cc/y6sxsy

 

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.

  1. 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.
  2. FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
  3. 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).
  4. To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
  5. 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:

 

  1.  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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

  1. Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
  2. At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
  3. 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.

This entry was posted in Blogs, Featured by Auldheid. Bookmark the permalink.
Auldheid

About Auldheid

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

7,185 thoughts on “To Comply or not to Comply ?


  1. I remember reading a post somewhere a list of the major issues surrounding the Ibrox clubs and the SFA since David Murray’s era.  It ran to about 30 items.  I’m not joking 30.  None made up, no small issues dressed up.

    I can remember about issues on a daily basis from 14 Feb 2012 until the end of that year for goodness sake.  30 is being kind.

    I honestly think I have normalised it now.  Nothing surprises me any more.  I take it as read with TRFC especially with King in control now.  The SFA likewise.  Rotten to the core.  Corrupt and compliant. This is the chance for the new guy to make his mark on it.  Yes he will need the agreement of others on the board.  But see if he doesn’t get it? resign and give reasons!  That would shake them to the core. Even the threat of it.

     If he wants to, this is a great opportunity to make a difference.


  2. JIMBOJULY 2, 2018 at 20:40
    Rotten to the core.  Corrupt and compliant.
    —————-
    And on that note July 4, 2012


  3. SLIMJIMJULY 2, 2018 at 20:25
    ——————————-
    but no idea re- the £16 million figure although i will take your word for it.
    ————-
    You don’t have to take my word on it.
    ——————
     HOMUNCULUS
                                                                                               JUNE 30, 2018 at 21:43
    To be fair the previous share issue, the June 2017 one, was going to be raising £16m. What happened with that one. 
    https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/1191675/sports-direct-tycoon-mike-ashley-has-severed-all-ties-with-rangers-after-he-sold-his-stake-in-the-club/
    ——————————–
    The £12.9 million in loans due to be repaid was answered earlier today (15.17) in response to a post from TORREJOHNBHOY.  
    ——–
    Just scrolled back and seen it,never seen it earlier for some reason…must refresh page more.
    —————–
    We will just have to wait and see with regard to the amount raised in any share issue.
    ————
    Is that the share issue that was to be held by june?
    Asked how much fresh cash will be made available as a result of the share issue which will take place in June, King said: “I met with (company secretary) James Blair on Saturday and we have given the go-ahead for the share issue to commence immediately.
    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-announces-rangers-raise-12494716


  4. JIMBOJULY 2, 2018 at 20:40
    I remember reading a post somewhere a list of the major issues surrounding the Ibrox clubs and the SFA since David Murray’s era.  It ran to about 30 items.  I’m not joking 30.  None made up, no small issues dressed up.
    —————
    Had a quick look,but could only find the list that starts with,
    Ally McCoist as manager.
    Ran for 5 pages and was posted on ETIMS celtic diary wednesday 18.
    Some of the things you forget.
    —-
    will try and have a look for other list 


  5. What are we to make of Maxwell and the current Board of the SFA?

    By their silence, by their refusal to allow a full, independent investigation into the very central issue concerning the granting of a UEFA licence to RFC(IL) they will have rendered  themselves  guilty art and part of any crime that the Directors of RFC(IL) may be found guilty of in relation to the award of a UEFA licence which enabled them to obtain millions of pounds to which they were allegedly not entitled.(And how insulting of them to offer  a ‘review’ by the in-house CO of matters that took place after the centrally important date!)

    I would suggest to  each member who was not on the SFA Board in 2011 that he/she  owes it to himself/herself to put a great deal of clear water between himself/herself and those who were on the Board in 2011,by now forcing the issue and demanding that the present Board invite the Police to investigate whether a crime may possibly have been committed by RFC(IL) directors collusively with SFA personnel to bring about the actual enrichment of RFC(IL) by millions of pounds.

    If the balloon does go up, this year, next year or in 5 years time, they will not be able to say “we didnae ken”.

    They will be met by the jeers of many people, when the chant of ‘well, ye ken noo!’ goes up.


  6. On the share issue, and if it happens, I think Club 1872 will spend the £1m or so they have raised. I think they have already agreed that about £475,000 of that was actually for “projects” but that buying shares was a project so it could be used.

    For the existing lenders, I really don’t see them buying more shares. They already have something like £20m which they have said they will convert to equity. Why would they put even more money in. It makes little or no sense.

    That leaves “new investors”, which would be allowed under the dis-application of pre-emption rights. However what’s the incentive for anyone to put new money into the loss making debt ridden PLC. I just don’t see it.

    There may be a debt to equity swap, but the only real money I can see is from the support.

    I could of course be 100% wrong in that. Its an unsubstantiated opinion based on absolutely nothing at all. 


  7. slimjim July 2, 2018 at 20:25
    CLUSTER ONE 19.56 We will just have to wait and see with regard to the amount raised in any share issue. Have heard DK mention “£6 million new cash in the balance converted to loans” but no idea re- the £16 million figure although i will take your word for it. The £12.9 million in loans due to be repaid was answered earlier today (15.17) in response to a post from TORREJOHNBHOY. 
    ==============================
    In one of King’s recent statements, he was planning for a 1 for 1 rights issue. If that was fully underwritten, then it would raise £16m at the expected 20p a share.


  8. CLUSTER ONE 21.56
    My mistake. I should have made it clear i was referring to transfer fees paid per age group on average and not the overall spend.  
    EJ
    Thanks for that. Must have missed it somehow.


  9. Has Gerrard realised yet that he has been sold a pup?

    Or does he still believe whatever BS King told him, in order to secure the LFC youth team coach?

    I think he should be told. 


  10. “Celtic have slated the SFA’s decision to knock back an independent review into the Rangers EBT saga as bombshell correspondence between Peter Lawwell and Stewart Regan was laid bare.
    In the most recent letter, sent by Lawwell to his Hampden counterpart on Thursday, the SFA’s refusal to commission a fresh probe was criticised by Celtic as ‘a failure in transparency, accountability and leadership’.”

    10 Sep 2017 Mailonline.

    Were there any backers Celtic?

    Sadly we can no longer rely on the likes of Raith Rovers,  RIP T. Hutton.

    Nor Hibs.  RIP R. Petrie (in a metaphorical sense).

    Oh and that guy Milne, the much loved boss man all the sheepies adore. (not)

    Ms. Budge, such a disappointment of a lady.  (Remember when I lauded her a few years ago, hoping she would not be swayed by the old boys network?)


  11. Just think, supposing 2 women were in place at Hampden – Budge & Dempster – and had the guts to stand up for what was right and fair.

    Without being overly political, think of a team like Barbara Castle and Ann Widdecombe .  Opposite sides of the fence but ferocious. 

    For Dempster it’s a tough ask with her boss’ Petrie’s ludicrous ambitions.  For Budge – no excuse.  You have the stadium redevelopment done.  Manager/DOF in place.  No distractions.  Get on with it.


  12. its amazing that whilst people come on here to defend cheating and to make it seem like its alright, there is a world cup in place and it is proving to be a show were even the smaller teams might possibly have a chance to win it or progress like never before and we are not even in it. Shame on the wreckers of Scottish Football and destroyers of fans dreams and fantasies and beliefs, shame on the lot of them who fleece the fans and give nothing in return. there used to be the feel good factor with the songs like i had a dream etc, now we have nothing at international level and a media complicit in creating stories in the hope it will drive away the talent if they are of a certain persuassion and will help a begging bowl club offload its dross for free and sell the public short by overating failed has beens for a cause. Shame on the lot of them, may they rot in hell.


  13. SLIMJIM
    “Not quite sure why CO.Unless i’m mistaken then i believe that NOAL have provided loans totaling £6.7 million to date.An agreement was reached with the board for them to provide additional funding when required.”
    The only £6.7 million figure I have seen is the loss sevco made in the first 6 months of 2017.
    Where do you get your number from?
    When did NOAL make this loan? 
    Surely this would disprove his “impecunious” status which would have been mentioned at the CoS case. An obvious own goal.
    Why did NOAL not provide the “unsecured loans” to RIFC and the Close Brethren were preferred instead? Did impecuniosity set in?
    Do you really expect NOAL to provide unsecured loans in the future?
    Do you really expect an imminent share offer to raise £6 million for Stevie’s “warchest”? 
    Is Dave King Victor Lustig’s love child?


  14. FINNMCCOOL
    My numbers are from the audited accounts.
    I take it the £6.7 million you refer to is the loss for the year ended June 30th 2017 and not the “first six months” as you claim. The loss (£6.663) included £3 million of non-recurring costs ( Sports Direct).  


  15. I keep reading on here from one individual that the SFA were 100% within their rights to grant Rangers a European licence in 2011 at 31st March. You would think if they were so within their rights they would have shown the world the documentary evidence by now, saved themselves considerable time and money, and proved how paranoid those obsessed Celtic fans are who are doing all the complaining. 


  16. SLIMJIMJULY 2, 2018 at 22:52
    STEVIE BCIn what way has he “been sold a pup”?
    ——————–
    We won’t really know until his first couple of games i believe.
    If he thinks the players he has required will topple celtic or even Aberdeen.
    It is his first managers job so he may be happy with the Hummel training gear, the trainning facilities in spain,the easyjet transport and the Green bins.
    The question should be.
    Do you think the ibrox fan’s have been sold a pup?


  17. It seems to me as though the SG experiment is being financed on the plastic and the trouble with spending borrowed money when you do not earn enough to cover it is so obvious it does not even need to be pointed out .

    Why any club would embark on such a strategy after what we have witnessed in the last 20 yrs is beyond me but for sevco 2012 to be doing it it truly staggering .

    Where are the sensible sevco supporters ,where are the supporters not blinded by hubris ,bigotry or a sense of entitlement ,that must surely see where this is heading .

    What the SFA and the peepil running our game have done by allowing a LIE to be passed as truth is to put in place the conditions were a club can literally  spend it’s way to oblivion with the backing of their supporters ,the only real mainstay of a football club and the people who would stand up and try and save their club and look to oust owners who were playing fast and loose with something they loved and invested in .

    By allowing peepil like TGASL to claim their football club can never die ,they have paved the way for him to bust sevco , all the while being cheered on by and even encouraged by the very support that should be his most vocal detrators 
    SHAME ON THEM ALL 


  18. CLUSTER ONEJULY 3, 2018 at 06:59
    SLIMJIMJULY 2, 2018 at 22:52STEVIE BCI
    I think it’s The Rangers that have been sold a pup.


  19. CLUSTER ONE 
    He seemed happy enough with the training facilities, and as for the training gear09 or flying with easyjet (criticized for spending too much money then criticized for saving money 06). The green bins are used by Arsenal, Man City, Chelsea, UK Olympic team etc so we are in good company.
    The “Ibrox fans” seem pretty happy atm.
    Strange how there is no comment about the supposed bid by Celtic for John McGinn, no coming in with a low bid of about 25% of what Garry Parker claimed Rangers would have to spend to buy him, no upsetting a player before the season starts. As i said strange.


  20. I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t agree with SlimJim at 9.28am with regards to the spending for the summer training camp.

    I have criticised Oldco & Newco many times in the past for not living within their means.  Trying to give the impression they are much higher up the financial pecking order than they are.

    I remember hearing about the money spent on their travels when in the bottom tier.  The most luxurious buses in the country, unnecessary stay overs in 5 star hotels.  A squad on Premiership level wages.  Ally McCoist nearing a million pounds a year?   The highest paid manager in Scotland.

    Even as recently as last summer, some of the players brought in by Pedro were on better wages than most at Celtic.

    So if it has finally dawned on them to reign it in, it’s not before time.  But with King in charge I doubt it.  He would rather go to the wall than do the right thing.


  21. As for McGinn, if Rod Petrie want’s to play funny beggars with Celtic, I would tell him to shove it.


  22. slimjimJuly 3, 2018 at 09:28
    ….Strange how there is no comment about the supposed bid by Celtic for John McGinn, no coming in with a low bid of about 25% of what Garry Parker claimed Rangers would have to spend to buy him, no upsetting a player before the season starts. As i said strange.

    Well, Slimjim, I think perhaps you’re missing the point of the ire towards your team in these matters.  It’s not the initial low bid, it’s the sustained offering of that same low bid for weeks at a time, combined with media pressure designed to unsettle.  I’ve not much love for Celtic, but if/when Celtic refuse to up their bid to a realistic value, but use their contacts in the media to conduct a ‘You’re stifling the boy’s career by refusing to accept our handful of beans’ narrative, on the back pages day after day after day after day after day etc. then you might have a point.


  23. AMFEARLIATHMOR
    So Celtic have no contacts in the media?. 
    I was of course referring to the lack of comments on here regarding the “bid”. Had this been Rangers then there would have been plenty of comments regarding this “derisory bid “, “unsettling the player” with the payment terms being openly discussed and ridiculed. . 


  24. What is there to comment on they made a bid it got knocked back nothing else to say at this point.


  25. SLIMJIM

    JULY 3, 2018 at 09:28

    Strange how there is no comment about the supposed bid by Celtic for John McGinn, no coming in with a low bid of about 25% of what Garry Parker claimed Rangers would have to spend to buy him, no upsetting a player before the season starts. As i said strange.
    ——————————————————–

    I’ve highlighted the key word in your rantlet: ‘supposed’.

    Unless you have inside info, you (like the tabloids) don’t know whether, or how much, CFC may have bid (or are thinking of bidding) for a player.

    Some clubs don’t need to play games with the SMSM on transfers & some do. Some clubs plant false flags re non-existent, inflated Chinese/Turkish bids for their players, or indeed who is paying for loaned-out players. Some don’t need to.

    Whitabootery, indeed.


  26. JINGOJIMSIE
    You can’t have it both ways . I included the word “supposed” to make the point that i don’t know whether there has been/ is going to be a bid for the player. This also applies to players Rangers are linked with surely. What i do know is that had this been Rangers then it would have been discussed at some length. 
    I take it you have evidence that the bid/s for AM are non-existent?  
     
    SHUG
    Does this apply to all clubs then Shug?


  27. From what I’m hearing, Celtic’s derisory opening bid of £1.5m has been turned down.  Doubtless mega-rich English teams will now raise the bidding…  14

    There is THIS to consider:

    Stuart Armstrong
    Age: 26
    Celtic Goals 2017/18: 5
    Scotland Caps last season: 4
    Remaining contract: 1 Year
    Celtic Valuation: £7 million

    John Mcginn
    Age: 23
    Hibs Goals 2017/18: 6
    Scotland Caps last season: 6
    Remaining contract: 1 Year
    Celtic Valuation: £1.5 million?

    Some fans worry that another player (Allan?)will be included in a swap deal and that would minimise the value to St Mirren of the sell-on clause by which John McGinn was sold to Hibs in the first place.

    St Mirren fans rightly point out that such a heinous piece of jiggery-pokery would be contrary to the spirit of football and FFP.  And that Celtic would NEVER degrade themselves by such actions.

    Older, perhaps no wiser, St Mirren fans will not be holding their breath…


  28. Celtics board,like every other board in the world,will try & maximise transfer income in,whilst minimising transfer income out.That’s their job.They’re good at it,probably the best ran club in the country.
    Just because Hibs supposedly value the player at £4m+ doesn’t make Celtics bid derisory,Celtic almost certainly value him lower.That’s why both clubs will negotiate,and a deal may,or not be struck.
    St Mirren have no influence whatsoever in this.It’s between CFC & Hibs.2 companies trying to strike a business deal.Everything else is crap.


  29. I doubt anyone is interested in any bid that may or may not be made by the club you support what we discuss really is the utter tripe that your clubs pr guy feeds to the media. 11 million for more or less If you get real lucky you may get 40 kensitas and embassy coupons for him.


  30. SLIMJIMJULY 3, 2018 at 09:28
    CLUSTER ONE He seemed happy enough with the training facilities, and as for the training gear  or flying with easyjet (criticized for spending too much money then criticized for saving money.
    —————
    It is his first managers job so he may be happy with the Hummel training gear, the trainning facilities in spain,the easyjet transport and the Green bins.
    —————-
    That is not a Criticism.
    As i stated,It is his first managers job so he may be happy with what he has got.Maybe a more experienced manager would not.Steven Gerrard may think this is how a biggish club in scotland operates,or is told this is how it operates and he is happy with that.It is his first step in to management.
    That is why i replied to. what way has he “been sold a pup”?
    By saying The question should be.Do you think the ibrox fan’s have been sold a pup?
    ———————-
    Strange how there is no comment about the supposed bid by Celtic for John McGinn, no coming in with a low bid of about 25% of what Garry Parker claimed Rangers would have to spend to buy him, no upsetting a player before the season starts. As i said strange.
    —————
    I personally had no comment to make as i never seen this news until later on this morning.
    My comment would be  opening bid of £1.5m for a player who has just come up from the championship and in the last year of his contract is not a bad opening bid.it is up to Hibs to knock it back and test celtics resolve


  31. FISHNISHJULY 3, 2018 at 15:45
    There is THIS to consider:
    Stuart ArmstrongAge: 26Celtic Goals 2017/18: 5
    Played in champions league
    Invincible.
    Double treble SPFL player 
    these last few seasons.
    Scotland Caps last season: 4Remaining contract: 1 YearCeltic Valuation: £7 million
    John McginnAge: 23Hibs Goals 2017/18: 6Scotland Caps last season: 6Remaining contract: 1 YearCeltic Valuation: £1.5 million?
    could be more add-ons for Hib’s if he reaches Stuart Armstrong rise at celtic


  32. I think McGinn has to be worth around £3.5-4m in real terms.
    I think Celtic might get him for £3m plus Allan going the opposite way with a percentage for any future sell on fee.
    This is the kinda deal I think Hibs would be hoping for given he’s entering into the final year of his Contract.
    You can’t compare McGinn with Armstrong as Armstrong has proven his worth in Europe at a higher level and standard.
    You are also forgetting Southampton have already had 3 proven signings from Celtic and will no doubt trust the valuation set by us.


  33. WRT John McGinn,only 3 things matter:
    1. How much do Hibs want?.
    2. How much are Celtic willing to pay?.
    3. What does John McGinn want to do?.
    Everything else is useless speculation & has no bearing on whether this deal goes through or not.Comparisons with Armstrong,money due to St Mirren etc.All a waste of time & energy.If McGinn wants to be at Celtic,& Celtic want him,then he will be,whether it’s by a transfer by fee now or signing a pre-contract in January.Celtic know that,Hibs know that,John McGinn knows that.
    It really is that simple.


  34. TORREJOHNBHOY
    JULY 3, 2018 at 20:33
    =======================================

    I was just going to type something similar.

    You saved me the bother, thanks. 


  35. Cluster OneJuly 3, 2018 at 21:40
    TORREJOHNBHOYJULY 3, 2018 at 20:33 WRT John McGinn,only one thing matters. When will the ibrox club put in a £2mill bid?
    ===================
    Ignoring the obvious,everything is covered by the options above.
    If young Mr McGinn decides Ibrox & the Gerrard revolution is for him,then Sevco can make a bid,and Hibs will either accept or reject it.St Mirren etc will have no bearing on the final outcome.


  36. easyJambo,  I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting on the SFA or SPFL taking a lead from UEFA.  I get the impression that the Hampden beaks think they are a law unto themselves.

    The only time they have any regard for UEFA is when they have to.  And of course if they want a position there.


  37. easyJamboJuly 3, 2018 at 22:27
    ‘..Interesting to see that UEFA are revisiting their own decision ..’
    __________
    That’s a good spot, eJ.

    There is a place for ‘statutes of limitation’ under which ‘crimes’ not discovered until a specified period of time has elapsed will not be prosecuted.

    But where a ‘crime’ that has been investigated and adjudicated upon and that  ‘judgment’ is subsequently found to have been unsoundly based on a false representation of the facts, statutes of limitation or time bars cannot possibly apply.

    If LNS was fed duff info, misleading info, then his conclusions can, and must be, set at nought.

    And if the club licensing authority in UEFA ratified a decision by the SFA Licensing Committee( which had been lied to) then clearly that ratification was unsound. 

    And doubly unsound if the SFA knew that porkies had been told.

    This is what baffles me: why is the opportunity to investigate the facts and circumstances not being given, if there is nothing to fear?
    No one is asking for highly confidential, private finance matters, of a then member club of the SFA to be disclosed. 

    Just a simple answer( with appropriate independently verified evidence, of course) to the question: was RFC(IL) actually in debt and actually owing money to HMRC on before the March date?

    There is a barra load of evidence that supports the view that was the case!

    It is astonishing that no evidence-based rebuttal has been forthcoming from the SFA.

    So astonishing that one really has to conclude that they have no effective, realistic defence against the charges that are made against the integrity and honesty of those who, one way or another, authorised the award of a UEFA competitions licence to RFC(IL) at the time in question.


  38. Judgement is a wonderful thing.  This blog is dedicated to Rangers.  We have to at least be honest about that.

    Motherwell stiffed their creditors.  But its ok.

    Dundee stiffed their creditors.  But its ok.

    Hearts had £30m of creditors.  They somehow got a CVA agreed by clearing £2.5m.  Who cares about the other 90% ?

    Livingston stiffed creditors.

    Loads of others too.

    But Rangers are the only bad yins.

    And thats the old Rangers and the completely new Rangers as they are just as bad eh.

    Dont expect this to make it past moderation.  If not, just cancel my login please.  Thanks.


  39. They haven’t taken the lead from UEFA by introducing a FFP situation in Scotland.  Although to be fair I believe it is our forward thinking clubs who are opposed to it.


  40. Of course if PSG are guilty then Celtic’s losses of 12-1 agg. will not count.  We will record 2x 3-0 victories.


  41. SLIMJIM
    Apologies. You were correct as to the summation of NOAL’s loans. 
    My ire is directed at the mendacious witness and the uncritical support given to this shyster. Hence the allusion to Victor Lustig.
    I understand the supporters need to believe in a Messiah who will vindicate and champion their God given right to be the “most successful team in the world”. The “club” that should be Top Dog, Capo di Tutti Capi, perennial winners, upholding the values of what is good and right in the world. The last bastion, guarding the free world against the slings and arrows of outrageous Republicanism.
    But this is the zeitgeist of the useless who pray for a billionaire with “wealth off the radar”.
    I think Homer Simpson said it best:
    “If you are up there. And if you can hear us. Please save us, Superman”. Or some such.
    But this is the real world. Superman doesn’t exist. Prayers generally go unanswered and sevco is just a business.
    It is one of the worst run businesses I have ever had the good fortune to laugh at on almost a daily basis! It is, in essence, more akin to a “tax deductible charity organisation”. 
    And of all the Messiahs you could pick, you plump for David Slybacon King!


  42. This blog is dedicated to rangers nope to the cheating lying and thieving. There will always be those who will call out the cheats and thieves. Newco appears to be no different living outwith their means using the media to try and bully clubs has a convicted criminal for a chairman who appears to be running things there will always be those who see nothing wrong in cheating even when they are caught bang to rights. 
    But Rangers are the only bad yins.
    There is no rangers only sevco you and the rest let your club die you stood back and watched as it disappeared into the abyss.The problem is you know this is the case and worse you know that we know you know and that bites.


  43. THELAWMAN2JULY 3, 2018 at 23:28
    Hearts had £30m of creditors.  They somehow got a CVA agreed
    ——————–
    And that must stick right in your craw,and every other ibrox fan out there.
    —–
    Motherwell stiffed their creditors. 
    Dundee stiffed their creditors
    Livingston stiffed creditors.
    Loads of others too.
    But their creditors all agreed a pence in the pound did they not?
    Why was it the rangers creditors did not?


  44. THELAWMAN2JULY 3, 2018 at 23:28

    Judgement is a wonderful thing.  This blog is dedicated to Rangers.  We have to at least be honest about that.

    Motherwell stiffed their creditors.  But its ok.

    Dundee stiffed their creditors.  But its ok.

    Hearts had £30m of creditors.  They somehow got a CVA agreed by clearing £2.5m.  Who cares about the other 90% ?

    Livingston stiffed creditors.

    =============================

    I notice you don’t mention Gretna, or did you just decide not to go there? Gretna were liquidated and don’t exist anymore.  Best to keep that sort of stuff away from the argument eh!


  45. what if……..
    Someone needed a scenario planted into the blog 
    someone or a few peepil appear on ,said blog to plant it 
    they go about chocking the blog up with unwinnable arguments
    then once the news is released by the peepil  that the scenario planted will not be looked at 
    then the person or persons planted throw their toys out the pram straight after and ask to be removed from the blog 

    Just wondering ,as all 


  46. Fishnish

    The money St Mirren receive has nothing to do with Celtic . The sell on agreement is between St Mirren and Hibs. The only club with an incentive to “ mess around “ to reduce the amount St Mirren receive is Hibs


  47. BARCABHOYJULY 4, 2018 at 07:58
    Fishnish
    The money St Mirren receive has nothing to do with Celtic . The sell on agreement is between St Mirren and Hibs. The only club with an incentive to “ mess around “ to reduce the amount St Mirren receive is Hibs
    ………………………….
    Aye, Barca….  
    My final words to my post acknowledged that probably a different ‘big boy’ will do the dirty and run away.

    I was merely noting how financial chicanery could be deployed to ensure that in Scottish fitba, as in the rest of finance, trickle down theory is a load of hogwash.

    The already skewed income created by a big support, (based on ‘Ideological’ grounds rather than local or sporting reasons), will continue to ensure that a couple of Glasgow-based teams are up the slope of Scottish fitba’s level playing field.

    Twas ever thus.


  48. This blog is dedicated to cleaning up the Scottish game.
    Rangers we’re guilty of flaunting the rules of the game in order to gain a sporting advantage.
    They were helped along the way by a more than helpful SFA who from the outside anyway appear to turn a blind eye when it came to this one Club.


  49. UPTHEHOOPSJULY 4, 2018 at 07:18

    =============================
    I notice you don’t mention Gretna, or did you just decide not to go there? Gretna were liquidated and don’t exist anymore.  Best to keep that sort of stuff away from the argument eh!
    _______________________________________________________________

    I didnt mention Gretna because i agree, they dont exist anymore.  The club and assets were never sold to new owners so its difficult to include them in the comparison above to be honest.

    As for agreeing pence in the pound, agreement or not, the creditors will all end up with a pence in the pound.  When you add all the football debt that was paid to all the small creditors who were paid by fans to what BDO will pay, then the pence in pound at Rangers will be similar to the pence in pound to Hearts.

    With Hearts, nobody cares.  In fact, some seem proud of the matter.

    With Rangers, well, its just different.

    Im ok with that by the way, but people need to call what it actually is and not hide behind any pretence.  It then allows the discussion to be more open and honest about things IMO.


  50. TheLawMan2July 3, 2018 at 23:28
    ‘….But Rangers are the only bad yins.’
    __________________________
    No other football club in the history of Scottish Football has been guilty of such a destructive and extended bout of sports cheating as SDM’s RFC(IL).

    The sheer wicked rottenness of that knighted cheat is matched only by the similar rottenness of the SFA in its readiness to sup with the serpent  instead of crushing its head, and its further readiness to create the  Big Lie  of the 5-Way Agreement, prostituting itself to people like King who has right royally abused them freely.

    As for the complicity of the SMSM in supporting the Big Lie,  I haven’t a vocabulary extensive enough to describe adequately the underlying willingness of our ‘journalists’ to deceive and mislead the public into believing that the poisonous serpent that is in Liquidation is the same entity as the debt-laden TRFC Ltd.

    Your attempt to compare the perhaps irresponsible/incompetent financial behaviour of the directors of other clubs with the deliberate, concentrated , malignant, and extended cheating of Sir David Murray’s Rangers is contemptible.


  51. Lawman,
    If you can’t tell the difference between the CVA’s you quoted and the liquidation of RFC then I’m afraid you’re on the wrong blog. At least those fans rallied round and saved their respective clubs.


  52. EX LUDOJULY 4, 2018 at 10:31
    Lawman,If you can’t tell the difference between the CVA’s you quoted and the liquidation of RFC then I’m afraid you’re on the wrong blog. At least those fans rallied round and saved their respective clubs.

    ____________________________________________________________________

    I absolutely can tell the difference.  For the clubs mentioned, the creditors agreed a pence in the pound and 95% of them got stiffed for money.  For Rangers, HMRC didnt agree a pence in the pound and 90-95% of them will get stiffed for money.

    If you take a step back for a minute and put the liquidation thing to 1 side, in each and every case, the ultimate result was that 90 to 95% of creditors lost their money and only 5-10p in the £ was paid.

    Lets create a hypothetical situation.

    I owe local taxi firm £100 but cant pay them.  This is my only debt.  I go into administration and they dont agree a CVA but due to my cash in bank they receive £12 and i get liquidated with £88 of unpaid debt

    You owe the same local taxi firm £100 but cant pay them. This is your only debt. You go into administration and this time they accept a CVA which gives them £9 and your company carries on having wrote off £91 of unpaid debt.

    In the above scenario, are you the good guy and im the bad guy ?  Is that how it works in your view ?  Does it not matter that the outcomes of creditors being paid is similar ?  Is anyone able to look at the above scenario and take football out of the equation and simply answer it from a pure business point of view ?


  53. TheLawMan2

    July 3, 2018 at 23:28

    Motherwell stiffed their creditors.  But its ok.
    Dundee stiffed their creditors.  But its ok.
    Hearts had £30m of creditors.  They somehow got a CVA agreed by clearing £2.5m.  Who cares about the other 90% ?
    Livingston stiffed creditors.
    Loads of others too.
    But Rangers are the only bad yins.
    ========================================

    You just made that up. Who said “stiffing creditors” is OK.

    To use Hearts as the obvious example, HMRC petitioned for Hearts to be wound up on several occasions, Hearts managed to come up with the money and avoid that. In the end they could not and were forced into administration.

    What they then did was bring in a proper administrator who decimated the team and cut costs dramatically. He then went about trying to save the club and managed it. He would not have agreed a CVA if he did not see a viable re-structured business going forward. He was right and I am sure the Hearts support are glad of it.

    HMRC would have had them liquidated like Rangers if they were owed a sufficient proportion of the debt. They didn’t and the CVA went through. The club was saved.

    It is not OK for anyone to “stiff creditors”. However how Rangers reacted to being caught in tax avoidance is what I have an issue with. The fake administration only being one part of that. The plan to have a debt free club with all of the same players, still in the SPL (as was).

    That is what separates Rangers from a normal administration process. It was a farce and in itself tantamount to cheating.


  54. TheLawMan2
    July 4, 2018 at 10:49
    ================================

    You would really need to change that scenario to “I steal £100 from a local taxi driver” if you want it to be analogous with what Rangers did.

    It would still be a nonsense argument, but at least it would be more accurate.


  55. JOHN CLARKJULY 4, 2018 at 10:17
    No other football club in the history of Scottish Football has been guilty of such a destructive and extended bout of sports cheating as SDM’s RFC(IL).
    The sheer wicked rottenness of that knighted cheat is matched only by the similar rottenness of the SFA in its readiness to sup with the serpent  instead of crushing its head, and its further readiness to create the  Big Lie  of the 5-Way Agreement, prostituting itself to people like King who has right royally abused them freely.
    As for the complicity of the SMSM in supporting the Big Lie,  I haven’t a vocabulary extensive enough to describe adequately the underlying willingness of our ‘journalists’ to deceive and mislead the public into believing that the poisonous serpent that is in Liquidation is the same entity as the debt-laden TRFC Ltd.
    Your attempt to compare the perhaps irresponsible/incompetent financial behaviour of the directors of other clubs with the deliberate, concentrated , malignant, and extended cheating of Sir David Murray’s Rangers is contemptible.

    ________________________________________________

    So to summarise, “Old Rangers” are the baddies because of what happened with all the tax stuff, which i completely understand and get.  I offer no excuse on that front.

    “New Rangers” are the baddies because the SFA and SPFL say they are the same club.  

    Is that a fair summary ?


  56. THELAWMAN2JULY 4, 2018 at 10:49

    EX LUDOJULY 4, 2018 at 10:31Lawman,If you can’t tell the difference between the CVA’s you quoted and the liquidation of RFC then I’m afraid you’re on the wrong blog. At least those fans rallied round and saved their respective clubs.

    ____________________________________________________________________

    I absolutely can tell the difference.  For the clubs mentioned, the creditors agreed a pence in the pound and 95% of them got stiffed for money.  For Rangers, HMRC didnt agree a pence in the pound and 90-95% of them will get stiffed for money.
    If you take a step back for a minute and put the liquidation thing to 1 side, in each and every case, the ultimate result was that 90 to 95% of creditors lost their money and only 5-10p in the £ was paid.
    Lets create a hypothetical situation.
    I owe local taxi firm £100 but cant pay them.  This is my only debt.  I go into administration and they dont agree a CVA but due to my cash in bank they receive £12 and i get liquidated with £88 of unpaid debt
    You owe the same local taxi firm £100 but cant pay them. This is your only debt. You go into administration and this time they accept a CVA which gives them £9 and your company carries on having wrote off £91 of unpaid debt.
    In the above scenario, are you the good guy and im the bad guy ?  Is that how it works in your view ?  Does it not matter that the outcomes of creditors being paid is similar ?  Is anyone able to look at the above scenario and take football out of the equation and simply answer it from a pure business point of view ?

    If only Business  Law was so straightforward eh?
    in your scenario you left a few details out because on a night time you used to sneak into the taxi rank and syphon fuel out of the taxi firms taxi this carried on for over 10 years and on the weekend you used that fuel and savings to ride around in a Ferrari (which under normal circumstances you could not afford)bought by borrowed money from a Bank (your “brother” was the Bank Manager in this fictional tale ??‍♂️) in the end the you reneged d on the loan the Ferrari was taken by bailiffs and ultimately sold at Auction for a knock down fee resulting in the guy fae the Taxi rank saying “”you know what this is one pi55 taking rsoul let the full weight of the court deal with him,bankrupt him it will be worth £100 just to see him die financially for his underhand actions”.
    Let’s no create a hypothetical anything Lawman let’s just keep it real.
    Rangers cheated the system
    Rangers got caught
    Rangers went bust owing 10’s of millions 
    Rangers died as an Entity
    Its Assets were sold of in order to pay off as much of the Debt as they could.
    The guy who bought said assets told you straight before during and after that failure to secure a CVA meant the end for the Club.
    His QC stood up in court unchallenged by the court and reaffirmed the fact Rangers the Club do not exist..
    “The concept of the Rangers Institution continuing exists only in the minds of die hard supporters.”

    []


  57. THELAWMAN2JULY 3, 2018 at 23:28
    Judgement is a wonderful thing.  This blog is dedicated to Rangers.  We have to at least be honest about that.
    Motherwell stiffed their creditors.  But its ok.
    Dundee stiffed their creditors.  But its ok.
    Hearts had £30m of creditors.  They somehow got a CVA agreed by clearing £2.5m.  Who cares about the other 90% ?
    Livingston stiffed creditors.
    Loads of others too.
    But Rangers are the only bad yins.
    And thats the old Rangers and the completely new Rangers as they are just as bad eh.
    Dont expect this to make it past moderation.  If not, just cancel my login please.  Thanks.
    ____________

    As ever, you ignore the unpalatable fact that Rangers’ insolvency came about as a direct result of their cheating, while the others came about as a result of rank bad financial management. All the clubs that achieved a CVA will forever have to suffer the ignominy of their insolvency and the damage they may well have brought to their creditors as a result of their unsustainable spending, while Rangers escapes such suffering as a result of it’s death.

    This blog is not dedicated to Rangers, as you suggest, for that might imply some admiration for the cheating entity. It is, though, dedicated to uncovering and highlighting the wrongs and cheating within Scottish football. Rangers FC just happens to figure so much higher than any other club in that regard that there isn’t so much to say about any other club – well, other than as victims of the cheating. 

    We do also, of course, try to highlight the aiding and abetting, plus the cover ups, by the game’s governors and the SMSM, of the said cheating.

    Cry all you like about how we write about your clubs, but it won’t change the fact that your first club cheated us all and that your new one follows all the putrid traditions of the old.


  58. I wonder how many of the Creditors who lost money from the CVA’s with the Clubs mentioned went on to do further business with said Clubs and have since recouped any loss as a result of doing so?
    My guess is (and it is only a guess by the way) that some have continued to have dealings with these same Clubs and have indeed made profit as a result?
    Feel free to go get evidence to the contrary Lawman ?


  59. Lawman, 
    In answer to your query I couldn’t really add much to the responses which followed mine and yours. In the real world Charles Green obtained the assets of RFC for £5•5 million. A short time later these assets were worth £70 million. Since we’re talking about stiffing creditors any thoughts on that manoeuvre? And please don’t argue that it was legal and above board. 


  60. lawman, ….. 
    If you take a step back for a minute and put the liquidation thing to 1 side, in each and every case, the ultimate result was that 90 to 95% of creditors lost their money and only 5-10p in the £ was paid.
    Lets create a hypothetical situation, ….ok then, … 
    the present “rangers” are the same club as rfc before liquidation.


  61. THELAWMAN2JULY 4, 2018 at 10:49
    EX LUDOJULY 4, 2018 at 10:31Lawman,If you can’t tell the difference between the CVA’s you quoted and the liquidation of RFC then I’m afraid you’re on the wrong blog. At least those fans rallied round and saved their respective clubs.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    I absolutely can tell the difference.  For the clubs mentioned, the creditors agreed a pence in the pound and 95% of them got stiffed for money.  For Rangers, HMRC didnt agree a pence in the pound and 90-95% of them will get stiffed for money.
    If you take a step back for a minute and put the liquidation thing to 1 side, in each and every case, the ultimate result was that 90 to 95% of creditors lost their money and only 5-10p in the £ was paid.
    Lets create a hypothetical situation.
    I owe local taxi firm £100 but cant pay them.  This is my only debt.  I go into administration and they dont agree a CVA but due to my cash in bank they receive £12 and i get liquidated with £88 of unpaid debt
    You owe the same local taxi firm £100 but cant pay them. This is your only debt. You go into administration and this time they accept a CVA which gives them £9 and your company carries on having wrote off £91 of unpaid debt.
    In the above scenario, are you the good guy and im the bad guy ?  Is that how it works in your view ?  Does it not matter that the outcomes of creditors being paid is similar ?  Is anyone able to look at the above scenario and take football out of the equation and simply answer it from a pure business point of view ?
    ___________

    I see you’re still ignoring the fact your club’s insolvency came about as a direct result of it’s cheating.


  62. TheLawMan2 July 4, 2018 at 09:18
    With Hearts, nobody cares. In fact, some seem proud of the matter.
    ==========================
    Absolute nonsense from you once again.  You will have evidence to support such an assertion of course. Nah, I thought not.

    The vast majority of Hearts fans were totally embarrassed and ashamed by what went on at the club, firstly under Chris Robinson, then under Vladimir Romanov.

    However, where Hearts fans differ from Rangers fans, was the way in which they responded to their respective financial issues.  When Hearts financial difficulties presented the fans with a stark choice of supporting a share issue in late 2012 or see the club shut its doors, they responded immediately raising over £1m, which was enough to see the club through to then end of the season, before eventually going into Administration in June 2013.

    There was no whingeing about HMRC not doing a deal, no complaints about a “taig conspiracy”, no whataboutery about what any other club might have said or done.  Indeed Hearts fans blamed no-one other than the “club” itself. I and virtually all Hearts are sorry that any creditor lost out as a result of the club’s mismanagement.

    What happened after going into administration? “Real Hearts men (and women)”  stepped forward to fund a CVA, working capital spending, capital spending projects, and now repaying the initial loan that funded the CVA. Hearts fans have raised £7.5m so far since exiting administration and continue to contribute £1.5m a year to the benefit of the club through FOH.  I am immensely proud of that.

    You might have missed it, but HMRC also voted against Hearts CVA in November 2013.     


  63. Ex Ludo
    July 4, 2018 at 12:12

    Lawman,  In answer to your query I couldn’t really add much to the responses which followed mine and yours. In the real world Charles Green obtained the assets of RFC for £5•5 million. A short time later these assets were worth £70 million.
    ====================================

    They really weren’t “worth” anything like that. The most accurate figure and even that would only be a bit of a guesstimate (fair value) would be what was paid, plus the release of negative goodwill.

    Negative goodwill is basically the difference between what someone paid to buy a business and how much more the tangible assets are worth (with apologies to bean counters everywhere).

    I think the figure for rangers was about £20m, so all told about £25m-£26m.


  64. JustTheFacts
    July 4, 2018 at 11:41
    ————————————
    And also, the new bloke knows.
     
    https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/dave-king-wants-to-take-oldco-rangers-out-of-liquidation-1-3883729
     
    “We have a vision going forward where I would like to see us taking Oldco out of liquidation and putting assets back into Oldco – putting the old Rangers back into the old company,” said King 01 This was his Martin Luther King moment (read “dream” for “vision” and as Martin Luther King would say it) Made me chuckle.10

    Sisting

    But:
    6.12 Filing an Order to stay a liquidationThe Court may make an Order staying, or sisting (meaning, stopping), winding up proceedings, either altogether or for a limited period of time, pursuant to Section 112 and Section 147 of the Insolvency Act 1986
     


  65. EASYJAMBOJULY 4, 2018 at 12:34
    There was no whingeing about HMRC not doing a deal, no complaints about a “taig conspiracy”, no whataboutery about what any other club might have said or done.  Indeed Hearts fans blamed no-one other than the “club” itself. I and virtually all Hearts are sorry that any creditor lost out as a result of the club’s mismanagement.
    You might have missed it, but HMRC also voted against Hearts CVA in November 2013.     

    _________________________________________________________

    There was no complaints from me.  No conspiracy theories either.  I blame individuals also, not creditors.  And nowhere did i suggest that HMRC didnt vote against the CVA.

    My only point was that despite all of the above and despite all the ridiculous level of effort from Hearts fans, the creditors still only got a pence in the pound and the rest of the debt was written off.

    PS – my suggestion that people “feel proud” of it is most certainly not aimed at you.  Not even Allyjambo either for that matter.


  66.  “Hearts were to be deducted a third of the previous season’s points tally which meant the club would start the 2013/2014 season with −15 points. During this period the BDO administrator Trevor Birch pleaded with Hearts fans to purchase season tickets and stated that they needed to sell at least another 3000 season tickets to raise another £800,000 to keep the club running and avoiding liquidation. The fans met this number and took total season ticket sales beyond the 10,000 mark, giving the club more survival time.”

    Wiki.

Comments are closed.