To Comply or not to Comply ?

ByAuldheid

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.

About the author

Auldheid author

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 Comments so far

jimboPosted on12:34 pm - Jul 7, 2018


Just the Facts.  Nice song that.

View Comment

HaudthebusPosted on12:45 pm - Jul 7, 2018


I am struggling with the idea that a supply organisation would involve itself in negotiating a supply agreement in the knowledge that it is simply being used as a “stalking horse” with access to the details being provided to SD to allow it to better the proposed deal if it so chooses. And wouldn’t you imagine that the supply company would expect its proposal to be held in confidence and not shared with a 3rd party. Perhaps I am missing the point here but I do wonder in these circumstances whether any alternative deal will be forthcoming and Ashley will hold the deal for as long as he wishes it …. or for as long as the entity exists?

View Comment

JustTheFactsPosted on12:49 pm - Jul 7, 2018


ALLYJAMBOJULY 7, 2018 at 12:28
JustTheFactsJuly 7, 2018 at 12:07 https://youtu.be/hoEle04qu_U________________
Really enjoyed that, thank you 
________________
@Jimbo
________________
Always been a favourite glad you both enjoyed it.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on12:53 pm - Jul 7, 2018


WEEANDYOJULY 7, 2018 at 10:42

I have been castigated at work for saying that David Murray killed the old club and DK is killing the new one.  Still it remains the gift that keeps giving.

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

Over 40,000 at Ibrox last night for a friendly against Bury which was not on the season ticket suggests Rangers fans think everything in the garden is very rosy. Like they did with Craig Whyte. If anything does happen they will no doubt be screaming about no-one warning them. 

View Comment

scottcPosted on1:04 pm - Jul 7, 2018


CLUSTER ONE
JULY 7, 2018 at 11:18
B e f o r e :MR. JUSTICE BRYAN____________________Between:SDI RETAIL SERVICES LIMITEDClaimant– and –
DAVID KINGPAUL MURRAYTHE RANGERS FOOTBALL LIMITED RANGERS RETAIL LIMITED——————–Why Paul murray when he has walked away.and could this be another reason Pau murray walked away?

Presumably PM is included as a signatory to the original contract. Best thing, for me about this whole episode, is that this case is in front of an English court. There will be no ‘establishment’ protection

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:09 pm - Jul 7, 2018


HaudthebusJuly 7, 2018 at 12:45 
I am struggling with the idea that a supply organisation would involve itself in negotiating a supply agreement in the knowledge that it is simply being used as a “stalking horse” with access to the details being provided to SD to allow it to better the proposed deal if it so chooses. And wouldn’t you imagine that the supply company would expect its proposal to be held in confidence and not shared with a 3rd party. Perhaps I am missing the point here but I do wonder in these circumstances whether any alternative deal will be forthcoming and Ashley will hold the deal for as long as he wishes it …. or for as long as the entity exists?
____________________

I am beginning to believe that RIFC/TRFC’s problems over this will be manifold, if SDI win their case. For the club must already have a contract with a distributor, with whom TRFC will have to break their contract, so make good any costs and, perhaps, compensation for the loss of earnings.

Then, if Hummel don’t already have a partnership in place with SDI, they will have to negotiate one with a distributor who knows Hummel will already have strips to sell, and can only do it through that hardnosed company. So, TRFC might end up having to compensate Hummel, or Hummel might view the merchandising contract now null and void and look to be reimbursed and compensated.

This orange strip (or, rather, the desperation to get it out) could well end up costing TRFC much more money than they were ever going to make from it!

View Comment

jimboPosted on1:17 pm - Jul 7, 2018


Haudthebus,

Good points.  What firm would want to tender for a contract with TRFC knowing the stranglehold SDI has over them.  At best they would be left with the dross after MA had creamed off the best bits.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on1:29 pm - Jul 7, 2018


JIMBOJULY 7, 2018 at 13:17
Haudthebus,
Good points.  What firm would want to tender for a contract with TRFC knowing the stranglehold SDI has over them.  At best they would be left with the dross after MA had creamed off the best bits.
————————————————————————————–
Been there, done that some years back. Left a competitor with a loss-making rump after cherry-picking the profitable bits of the contract. I’d be surprised if MA, after all his years of experience in this area, would expose himself to that possibility.

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on1:30 pm - Jul 7, 2018


Remember when the media gleefully told the world that King had ‘ripped up’ the contract with Ashley and told him to take a hike? Is there nothing that would embarrass these people after printing such utter crap?

View Comment

part time petePosted on1:34 pm - Jul 7, 2018


A Bury supporting acquaintance of mine said that originally the game was to have been played at Bury but got changed to be played at Ibrox, but only on condition that Bury got 50% of the gate money. I would imagine Bury will be waiting for the money for a long time.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on2:49 pm - Jul 7, 2018


This whole set of increasingly ludicrous events will make for a great case study but a bad film because it would be regarded as too preposterous. For one thing Rikki Fulton as I. M Jolly is no longer available to play DCK 
I see that the injunction calls the SPFL the FPFL at one point more evidence of the fabled unseen hand in action no doubt.

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on3:03 pm - Jul 7, 2018


Isn’t there an SFA rule (no laughing at the back) that teams have to register all their strip designs before the season starts? I believe its probably well before now actually.
Not that I’d have any confidence of any SFA action if TRFC fell foul of this piddling little detail, & there might be some discretionary leeway anyway.
A small matter given the news about contract difficulties, but something I’d have thought might have ben raised before now.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on3:19 pm - Jul 7, 2018


BAD CAPT MADMANJULY 7, 2018 at 15:03                                                                                                             FRom SPFL Rules and Regs .                                                                                                   
Clubs to Register ColoursG29 By 1st June (or such othe as may be fixed from time to time by the Board) ineach year, all Clubs shall submit to the Company written details of their first,second and, where applicable, third choice colours (of shirts, shorts and socks).G30 The first and second choice colours must be different and distinct.G31 The colours registered by each Club shall be worn during the following Season andno changes either in the colours or the combination of colours shall be permittedduring the course of the season except in the circumstances set out in Rule G37 orwith the prior approval of the Board.G32 A Club may, at its discretion, register third choice colours, which must be differentand distinct from its first and second choices.G33 Subject to the provisions of Rules G35, G37 and G38 Clubs are required to weartheir first choice colours in all League Matches and Play-Off Matches, save that aClub shall be permitted to play a maximum of four Home League Matches in anySeason in colours which are not the first choice, provided that the Company, theopposing Club and the Referee appointed for such League Match have beenadvised in writing not less than 48 hours before such League Match and theReferee (whose responsibility shall relate to the match in question only in this 61regard) shall determine whether each Club can wear its first choice colours in anygiven League Match or Play-Off Match in order to ensure compliance with RulesG35, G37 and G38.G34 Each Club shall submit a sample of its registered colours to the Secretary by 30thJune each year, such samples to be retained for the duration of the Season.G35 No Club shall be permitted to play in shirts the colour of which is likely to causeconfusion with the outfit worn by the Match Officials.G36 The obligations of Rule G29 are additional to any obligations to submit club coloursto the Scottish FA in accordance with the Scottish FA Articles

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on3:35 pm - Jul 7, 2018


Thanks to Paddy Malarkey for the rules.
So clubs can register a third choice strip, but all must be registered by 1st June, and samples presented to SFA by 30th June.
Was the mandarin one registered & sample presented? If Sports Direct win their case would there be any changes required to that design? If so would it still be a viable product if this needed SFA approval? (Again, no laughing at the back)
You have to wonder at the quality of forward planning down Ibrox way to keep themselves out of trouble & saving money.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:28 pm - Jul 7, 2018


One is forced to wonder why Rangers feel the need to release a lengthy adversarial statement today.

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

RANGERS has been informed that the SPFL Board has refused our request for an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the position and disclosure by its chairman, Murdoch MacLennan, of his appointment to the position of non-executive chairman at Dublin-based Independent News and Media (INM).

It is common knowledge that INM and Celtic FC share two significant shareholders in Mr Dermot Desmond and Mr Denis O’Brien. Mr Desmond and Mr O’Brien each have the ability to appoint directors to the Board of INM. These directors are described in INM’s annual report and accounts as not being independent.

It is also clear that, as chairman of a company in the difficult position that INM finds itself, Mr MacLennan will be required to review evidence and materials relating to INM’s dealings with its shareholders, including Mr Desmond and Mr O’Brien. Has Mr MacLennan notified the SPFL chief executive of this conflict? If the chief executive was notified, as he should have been, can he confirm why he did not notify the SPFL Board of this interest?

It is surprising that Mr MacLennan does not recognise and acknowledge that there is clear scope for conflict of interest between the duties owed by him to the SPFL and its shareholders and the duties he now owes to INM and Mr Desmond and Mr O’Brien as INM shareholders. Under the present circumstances no SPFL club can be sure of being properly served.

Our concerns are heightened by the fact that Mr MacLennan has yet to offer an explanation for the very serious public allegations that he used highly inappropriate language when speaking about Rangers while working in the newspaper industry.

In the interests of proper governance, transparency and integrity the SPFL should have agreed to an independent investigation of this extremely serious matter and should not have refused to answer all questions and address the genuine concerns put to them in a formal letter by Rangers.

Now, however, and because there is no route of appeal against this decision, Rangers is left with no alternative but to call for Mr MacLennan to stand down as SPFL chairman. Apart from this being the correct course of action under the circumstances, it would also be the honourable thing to do.

Rangers believes that Mr MacLennan cannot be considered fit and proper to continue in his role as SPFL chairman as he is now obliged to recuse himself from meetings and decision-making processes which could impact on member clubs. The SPFL needs a chairman that can openly participate in all meetings.

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on4:47 pm - Jul 7, 2018


Homunculus- which “Rangers” put out the statement?
If its TRFC, the SFA member, could this be the sort of thing that could be described as bringing the game into disrepute by slandering or should that be libelling the governing body’s officials? 
Would any other SFA member get away with this sort of thing?
Anyhoo, that’s 3 posts from me on the one afternoon & I’d better let someone else have a go – still anything’s better than watching Engerland winning.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:52 pm - Jul 7, 2018


Its an official club statement.

https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-89/

So its the club which is responsible for it. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on5:30 pm - Jul 7, 2018


Unbelievable.   After two major issues this week, some would say three if you count the orange strip decision, this is their main concern.

Deflection doesn’t even begin to describe it.

View Comment

MercDocPosted on5:45 pm - Jul 7, 2018


I think Wee Stevie from Ibrox IT, should update their RIFC board of Directors. Maybe he’s as confused as me to what board he’s updating.
https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/board/board-of-directors/
or
https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/trfcl-board/

Anyway, the first (rifc) still has PM and BS as Directors and has AJ, been passed Fit and Proper ( Does he need to be, as he is part of the same board as DCK and he’s not passed).
The second mob (trfcl), don’t know what they do?
I’m so confused!

View Comment

shugPosted on6:44 pm - Jul 7, 2018


From Phil sorry if already been posted
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/07/07/a-sevco-legal-own-goal-and-a-ten-year-anniversary/

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:45 pm - Jul 7, 2018


BAD CAPT MADMANJULY 7, 2018 at 15:03
10
0 Rate This
Isn’t there an SFA rule (no laughing at the back) that teams have to register all their strip designs before the season starts? I believe its probably well before now actually.Not that I’d have any confidence of any SFA action if TRFC fell foul of this piddling little detail, & there might be some discretionary leeway anyway.A small matter given the news about contract difficulties, but something I’d have thought might have ben raised before now.
—————–
CLUSTER ONEJULY 6, 2018 at 15:52
34
2 Rate This
Re the mandarin topIs this the official european top?The home and away kit is used for home SPFL games and away SPFL games,and sometimes swapped around if there is a colour clash.A third kit is used more for cup games and european games.That is what i assume anyway,And all strip designs and colours should be registered to the SFA by such a date,the date alludes me for the moment.
———-
PADDY MALARKEY
JULY 7, 2018 at 15:19
Thanks for that.

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on7:02 pm - Jul 7, 2018


HomunculusJuly 7, 2018 at 16:52

Incoming Klingons.01

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on7:13 pm - Jul 7, 2018


“Davie’s left peg” has his own view on the latest court disclosure.

https://daviesleftpeg.wordpress.com/2018/07/07/how-is-this-even-possible/

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:19 pm - Jul 7, 2018


CLUSTER ONEJULY 7, 2018 at 11:18
18
0 Rate This
B e f o r e :MR. JUSTICE BRYAN____________________Between:SDI RETAIL SERVICES LIMITEDClaimant– and –
DAVID KINGPAUL MURRAYTHE RANGERS FOOTBALL LIMITED RANGERS RETAIL LIMITED——————–Why Paul murray when he has walked away.and could this be another reason Pau murray walked away?
————————-
I understand that Mr Paul Murray was playing golf at Loch Lomond when the papers were served for this action.
My information is that this rather spoiled his day.
I told my guy that i was rather puzzled as to why Mr king and Mr Murray were named as individuals on the court papers.
My confusion was that if they were being held personally  liable could that mean that they had been personally benefiting  from the rangers retail limited deal.
My source told me that might very well be the case.
—————
See that Phil he just reads SFM then asks the questions08
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/07/07/a-sevco-legal-own-goal-and-a-ten-year-anniversary/
————–
If you are looking in Phil,you know i’m only joking.
some get there back up at that kind of thing,but not here at SFM.
—–
Thanks for all your hard work.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:04 pm - Jul 7, 2018


SLIMJIMJULY 6, 2018 at 22:40
4
64 Rate This
BB 22.28I posted on a couple of Rangers forums at the time calling this nonsense out for what it was.Meanwhile Nikola Katic will no doubt be targeted by the colour police after wearing a pair of Orange boots in this evenings 6-0 victory over Bury in front of 41,025 supporters. 
—————-
Celtic win by 7 one more goal scored than the Lets go ibrox team,but i don’t know if any players wore orange or Green boots.found the score posted on a couple of celtic forums,and in no way am i trying to deflect away from the real issues.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:35 pm - Jul 7, 2018


Something wrong with my computer ….missed the statement about the contempt of court and missed the statement about the court case with the retail deal.
Or is everything ok on my end and i have not missed at all.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:45 pm - Jul 7, 2018


EASYJAMBOJULY 7, 2018 at 19:13
5
1 Rate This
“Davie’s left peg” has his own view on the latest court disclosure.
https://daviesleftpeg.wordpress.com/2018/07/07/how-is-this-even-possible/
—————–
That is not a happy place,wonder what took them so long.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:03 pm - Jul 7, 2018


WAS THE DECISION TO SPEND £1MILLION ON MIKE ASHLEY’S SHARES A DIFFICULT ONE? THAT WAS MONEY THAT WENT TO HIM RATHER THAN INTO THE CLUB.
LF: That was a consideration but it brought an end to the well documented difficulties that the club had been having with Mike Ashley. We factored that in and that was ultimately what made us take that decision.
BT: I think that has proven to be the right decision, hasn’t it? In terms of the reaction to it.
LF: We had between 700-1000 new members in the week or two after the Mike Ashley share purchase and I think because it removed his influence from the club, you can’t underestimate or underplay the significance of the purchase, not just for Club 1872 because it saw us become the second largest shareholder, but for Rangers as well.
I remember the negotiations and discussions over a number of weeks. It was myself and Joanne Percival that were dealing with it. But we didn’t know until a certain point who was selling the shares.
We were asked to be in the office a few times and this one time they said they would reveal to us who the seller was. We got a call to say they were still talking to the lawyers and they didn’t know if it was going to be tonight so we ordered a pizza and waited.
It got to about 9.30pm and we said it looked like it wasn’t going to happen so I was driving Joanne home and her mobile rang and it was the call. We pulled over and the person on the phone asked if we could confirm that we were alone in the car and that nobody else was there. They revealed it was MASH that we were purchasing the shares from and Joanne and I literally high-fived each other. We knew the significance of that.
It has not been easy at Club 1872 and because it is run by people who are passionate about it and believe in the project, that is why you can take it to heart. But that was such a significant moment for us and what it is all about. We want to be working towards that again and something that is so important for the club.
The money did go directly to Mike Ashley. But we believe it was an investment in the club in terms of removing his influence. It was a really good moment.
——————–
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15898584.Rangers_Q_A__Club_1872_on___1million_share_issue_fundraising_drive__Ashley_share_purchase__board_representation_and_fan_ownership/?utm_content=buffer30052&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Wonder if they knew?

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:54 pm - Jul 7, 2018


You’ve got to wonder what the members of Club 1872 are thinking now.  Their leaders bought £1m of shares, on their behalf, from Mike Ashley to help be rid of his influence.  (and to increase their shareholding).  But being rid of Mike Ashley was the icing on the cake.   The £1m didn’t go to the club, but to Mike Ashley.

Alas, he still here.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on11:08 pm - Jul 7, 2018


Some other points from the injunction document :

1. It is not a decision on the rights or wrongs of the case – that is for later judgement. All that is of concern is “that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious; in other words, that there is a serious issue to be tried.” (“..it is not the role of this court to conduct a mini-trial at this stage”).

Comment : The hearing will be next week.

2.  An injunction was the appropriate action as damages were not likely to be an adequate remedy because they were capped at £1M.
 
Comment : There was also an issue over what would be considered relevant losses due to potentially conflicting wording in the agreement.

3.  “It was also made clear that it was said to be vital to Rangers business model for the next and following seasons for it to launch its retail operations from 1st August, four days before its first fixture in the FPFL,…”
 
Comment : Are Close and other creditors aware of these serious concerns? See also 7 & 8 below.
 
4.  The Court was “satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried and, for what it is worth, more than serious issue to be tried in relation to the construction advocated on behalf of the claimant. That is not to say that that is the construction that would necessarily ultimately find favour, but I am satisfied that the requirement of a serious issue to be tried is satisfied by some margin.”
Comment : The requirement for a court hearing on this was a ‘slam dunk’.

5.  The issues appears to be that TRFC have not provided SDI with adequate notification or information upon which to base their decision on whether to match the offer by a third party :  “it is strongly arguable that in order for SDIR to be able to identify whether it is willing to match Material Terms in all material respects in relation to any of the Offered Rights, or in relation to all or any combination of the Offered Rights, it is necessary, or at least strongly arguable that it is necessary, that the information provided in paragraph 5.4 is provided by reference to each of the Offered Rights individually. I would repeat, however, that the views I have expressed are purely for the purpose of satisfying myself that there is a serious issue to be tried.”

Comment : How can you match an offer if you don’t know what it is in scope or financial terms?

6.  “It is submitted….that the agreement provides for the possibility of infinite numbers of renewals.” and as such “that damages would be difficult to assess”.
 
Comment : There is no mention of any ability by RIFC/TRFC to terminate the agreement unless there is a breach or failure of some kind by SDI. It would appear that SDI could conceivably maintain the agreement forever if they match any competitor offering.

7. The Court was “shown a document attached to the witness statement of Mr. Blair in opposition to the application for an injunction today, which suggests that in fact the contract to date has been loss-making.”
 
Comment :  Does this mean TRFC/RIFC are deriving no net revenue from this contract?
 
8. The Judge then said with regard to this “ In riposte to the riposte, if I can put it like that, certain evidence in reply was referred to which suggests that after taking into account royalties from Puma, the existing contract was allegedly profit making.”
 
9.  “Reference is made (to) ….. Mr. Blair’s witness statement….. It is said that merchandising income is a fundamental part of TRFC, indeed, any football club’s business, and being able to market a new football strip for the start of the season is essential to maximise impact and sales. It is said that if that opportunity is missed there will be a loss of income and of cash-flow, which impacts upon the ability to bring in players in the transfer window in August and, hence, on on-field performance which, in turn, impacts upon prize money.”

Comment : Just how Close to the wind are RIFC/TRFC sailing? Again, are Close and other creditors aware of this serious concern?

10. The unnamed third party is “hot to trot” and this is evidenced by an email from their MD :
“Hope everything is okay. Just a quick note regarding the retail tender. We are now getting incredibly tight with our timeline to open the store at the end of August (if we were successful). The refit needs a complete site survey and approx. 3 weeks of manufacturing time. I’m very worried we are not going to be able to deliver for you here. Is there anything that can be done to push things along? Thanks in advance”.

“… that is the language of a party that is a willing party at the present stage but is simply concerned about timing.”

Comment : Who are this third party? There is earlier comment on possible SDI losses that these potentially include “reputational harm and/or lost goodwill arising from losing rights contained in the Agreement to a competitor.”

11. How does the third party’s statement that “our timeline to open the store at the end of August” square with the earlier statement that it was “vital to Rangers business model for the next and following seasons for it to launch its retail operations from 1st August…”.

Scottish Football needs a full time lawyer…..

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:42 pm - Jul 7, 2018


Heaven help us, James McFadden, Scotland’s assistant manager is not happy with call offs for the controversial games against Mexico & Peru. 

In particular he seems to be upset with Kieran Tierney and Andy Robertson. 

Andy Robertson was representing Liverpool in the Champions League Final.

Kieran Tierney played 55 games for Celtic and 7 for Scotland.  He might have needed a rest/break?

Then there was the threats!

“I can’t believe there were players that couldn’t make the trip.”
McFadden, 35, continued: “They’ve harmed [their chances] in that aspect but they’ve also harmed it in the players that have come in and done well in their place.
“It’s a new coaching staff, new campaign coming up and we’re looking for players that want to go and play for Scotland, but are also good enough, and if we don’t get a chance to see them, how can we judge them?
“The ones that came in did very well and it’ll be difficult for the ones that pulled out or weren’t there to get back in.”
McFadden singled out Hibs’ Lewis Stevenson and Kilmarnock’s Stephen O’Donnell for praise in defence.
“Lewis Stevenson was excellent, he had a fantastic season and played really well,” McFadden told BBC Scotland. “Stephen O’Donnell played two 90 minutes, and it was a position we were looking for players to step up and he certainly did that.”

Well it sounds like Tierney & Robertson are now surplus to requirements.

McFadden will go far.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:56 pm - Jul 7, 2018


jimboJuly 7, 2018 at 23:42

It’s almost as if there’s no big stories this weekend for the SMSM to write about14

If I didn’t know any better, I’d be saying that article was more about deflection than information for the public.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:58 pm - Jul 7, 2018


easyJamboJuly 7, 2018 at 19:13 “Davie’s left peg” has his own view on the latest court disclosure”
______________________
Whatever else about “Davie’s left peg”‘s views, eJ,  his question  “..Who legally checked and approved the contract?” is one that must instantly arise in the minds of all of us!

Surely not even a half-way competent ‘family lawyer ‘, let alone the kind of specialist commercial or contracts expert lawyer, would allow a client to sign such an apparently ‘onerous  contract’?

Especially if the client had already had experience of court action to prevent some guy from charging him for that guy’s legal costs in the matter of responsibility for ‘onerous contracts’ contracted at an  earlier period!

Yet again, it seems to me, (and, of course, leaving aside any mention of moral or ethical qualities), the commercial, business and PR qualities  of the Directors of both TRFC Ltd and RIFC plc are unbelievably limited.

Geez, when even I ( by no means particularly streetwise) tend to read the small print with some degree of care before I sign, it is doubly astonishing that TRFC Ltd should have had such poor legal advice as to sign the contract, and then stupidly, STUPIDLY, breach it a few days before it legally expired!

Just what in God’s name were they thinking of?

Whatever it was, it was clearly not to the advantage of TRFC Ltd.

To be absolutely scrupulously fair, I need to say that of course, a lawyer has to do what his client pays him to do ( if it is lawful in itself), even if the client chooses to ignore his advice. 

Perhaps the signatories on TRFC Ltd’s part to the contract were properly advised by their lawyer(s) but for reasons of their own chose to ignore the advice?

Who knows? 

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:04 am - Jul 8, 2018


Agreed Ally, I know what you’re talking about.  That’s the BBC angle. But it still annoys me that McFadden would hold that opinion.  He couldn’t lace either of the players boots.   They are not rascals out on the booze. They both love playing for Scotland.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:13 am - Jul 8, 2018


redlichtieJuly 7, 2018 at 23:08
‘…..Some other points from the injunction document :..’
__________________
And very well made -and to the point-points, redlichtie!04

View Comment

finnmccoolPosted on4:11 am - Jul 8, 2018


I made a mistake and clicked a link to the site of someone called Davie.
I was disgusted and sickened by the bilious cant written on those pages.
I see no reason why any of our commentators should feel the need to direct us there in the first place.
May I ask the moderators to block any mention of, or link to, this sick and twisted individual’s site?

 

View Comment

BillydugPosted on7:12 am - Jul 8, 2018


Matthew Lindsay: Sorry Takeover Panel saga could have far-reaching implications for Dave King and Rangers | HeraldScotlandWHERE would Rangers be just now without David Cunningham King?
Would they have just installed Steven Gerrard as their new manager? Would they be waiting to launch a European campaign? Would they have signed seven players who had been identified by their Director of Football? Would they have taken back control of their retail operation? Would they be hopeful of challenging Celtic for silverware in the season ahead? It is all very unlikely.
The Ibrox club may not, as the forthcoming campaign is liable to show, be at the same level as their Parkhead rivals, but progress has certainly been made, both on and off the park, since King and his associates took control three years ago.
The previous regime, an unfortunate alliance between Greenock businessmen James and Sandy Easdale and Sports Direct tycoon Mike Ashley and his acolytes, had left Rangers facing a highly uncertain future. Crowds had plummeted to their lowest levels in three decades. There was concern about dwindling finances, alarm over the ownership of precious club assets and protests in the stands.
Where would it all have ended if King, George Letham, Douglas Park and George Taylor hadn’t come along when they did? And what would happen if the soft loans being provided by those wealthy benefactors and others were no longer forthcoming? How would the losses be offset? It just doesn’t bear thinking about for supporters who have been through so much trauma and turmoil during the past six years.
It is, then, no surprise that King commands the widespread, if not universal, backing of the support. Yes, there were banner displays and chants expressing discontent during a game at Ibrox following the heavy and humiliating defeats to Celtic last season. The subsequent appointment of Gerrard, though, has sent his approval rating through the roof.
But every action made by the inhabitants of the Rangers boardroom must, after the reigns of Sir David Murray, Craig Whyte, Charles Green and those who succeeded them, still be scrutinised and questioned by their followers and that is just not the case as things stand.
The statement released by the Takeover Panel, who have been involved in a lengthy legal stand-off with King over his failure to make an offer to his fellow Rangers stakeholders for their shares, on Wednesday was practically ignored.
The Glasgow-born, Johannesburg-based businessman has repeatedly attempted to make light of this issue by insisting it is of no concern to Rangers. He did so again in a statement released to the BBC this week. “It is not something that I see as critical for the club,” he said.
But the reality is this sorry saga may yet have far-reaching implications for both King and Rangers.
He had insisted that he was unaware the funds for the shares had to be in a United Kingdom bank account in sterling rather than a South African bank account in rand and the requisite cash confirmation provided by an appropriate third party. During a media briefing at Ibrox back in May he said: “They changed the requirement as far as I’m concerned.”
But that was repeatedly challenged in the lengthy Takeover Panel missive. It read: “It was explained that cash confirmation would need to be provided by a UK financial adviser or bank stating that sterling funds were freely available in the UK and could not be withdrawn.”
So what exactly is the problem here? Is King unable to transfer the money out of South Africa where sizeable foreign exchange transactions are subject to controls or simply unwilling to? Few, if any, shareholders will accept the offer. So why not just comply with the Takeover Panel ruling and focus fully on rebuilding Rangers? This is an expensive and time-consuming process which has tarnished his reputation. Indeed, he has now had contempt of court proceedings initiated against him.
The prospect of King being “cold-shouldered” – which would prevent any individual or institution regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority from dealing with him of acting on his behalf – remains a very real one. That sanction would make his position as chairman untenable. And he has previously stated that his investment is incumbent on him holding that office.
Elsewhere, the share issue made possible by the passing of Resolution 11 at the AGM last year that was supposed to take place by the end of June and raise at least £6 million in fresh capital has not occurred.
The fans who flocked to Ibrox last night to see Rangers take on Bury in Steven Gerrard’s second game in charge are excited and optimistic about the season ahead but there remain reasons for them to be wary about what the future holds.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:35 am - Jul 8, 2018


BILLYDUGJULY 8, 2018 at 07:12
WHERE would Rangers be just now without David Cunningham King?
———————-
maybe not in a huge pile of sh..

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:07 am - Jul 8, 2018


Quick question if i may.
The sale of the mandarin tops was to take place in October and would inject a cash windfall into the ibrox coffers a few months after the season has started.
My question is this.
How long after the season started last year did the ibrox club need a loan.
Thanks for any replies,i know i have the details somewhere but not had my coffee yet and some distractions to  catch up on.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on9:53 am - Jul 8, 2018


Cluster OneJuly 8, 2018 at 09:07
=====================
Morning all.
I’m almost certainly wrong but I don’t see much of a windfall for TRFC if shirts of any colour are not on sale until October.the launch of new shirts is deliberately timed to catch the summer market.If the “mandarin” shirt was already on sale you would’ve seen thousands of them on the streets yesterday.Whatever your views wrt yesterdays festivities,missing this,and the holiday market will put a massive dent in shirt sale numbers.
Pretty sure TRFC were in need of external funding last October,Was a figure of £4m by the end of November not mentioned with the 1st trance of over a million required by the end of October?.That was including any cash already made on shirt sales.If Ashley wins & shirts are not on sale by October then the cash flow situation will be even more critical.
As an aside,I think Phil reported that the Hummel deal was worth only £1m per season to TRFC.That would be made up by £600k in cash & £400k in strips,trackies,training gear etc.I’m also quite sure he stated that TRFC would have to sell at least twice as many high price goods(shirts etc) just to make the same as the now defunct Puma deal.Missing the Summer Holiday,Marching season markets will have a lasting,negative effect on merchandising sales & therefore,on TRFC finances.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:30 am - Jul 8, 2018


John ClarkJuly 7, 2018 at 23:58
easyJamboJuly 7, 2018 at 19:13 “Davie’s left peg” has his own view on the latest court disclosure”______________________Whatever else about “Davie’s left peg”‘s views, eJ, his question “..Who legally checked and approved the contract?” is one that must instantly arise in the minds of all of us!
__________________________

I’d been thinking along similar lines just before reading your post, John, though not from the perspective of who checked it at the time of signing, for they may well have had no choice but to go with Ashley’s demands. I was more thinking about how it could come about that they just went ahead, for whatever reason, with the kit launch so close to the date they would be free to deal with whoever they want. Well, he’s named in the injunction, and he’s not there now, so could it be that, had he remained, it would have been Paul Murray who would/could have said, ‘haud oan a minute!’

I’m not suggesting Murray is any more merchandising-savvy than any of the other directors, but he must have had some function (it wasn’t supplying cash) and he was involved in the contract from it’s inception. Could this latest mess the club finds itself in be a result of Murray’s departure, regardless of whatever caused his resignation?

I imagine King’s leadership style is to be dismissive with his fellow directors, and to not explain the small print of any deal he negotiates (or was thrust upon him). The other directors were, quite possibly, unaware of the contents of the contract as King would be keen for them to believe he’d bested Ashley, and, with none of them in businesses with much call for merchandising, be unaware of just how clever, and devious, Mike Ashley could be. 

King, sitting in South Africa, a long way from the contract, so didn’t bother to read it over before acting, was only concerned with getting ‘good’ news out on a bad news day, and no one was around with the knowledge that could stop him making a monumental error.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:40 am - Jul 8, 2018


From the BBC on the kit deal case.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44751374

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:49 am - Jul 8, 2018


The temporary ban, which applies until at least Tuesday.
—–
The case will be heard again on Tuesday when it is expected that sports Direct will seek to have the injunction continued.
By Marc Deanie.
———————————–
How temporary is a ban that can get continued?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:51 am - Jul 8, 2018


From what I could see Dave King took the credit for “seeing off” Mike Ashley.

He must surely then take the responsibility for the £3m it cost to change the terms of the original deal and for this new situation where Sports Direct can pick and chose which parts of any new deal they want.

He must also take responsibility for the requirement to let SD know the details of any alternative bid made by other companies.

Or does he just take the good bits and the rest are someone else’s issue. That seems familiar.

Seriously, if you are a Rangers supporter you must see how much damage this man has done and continues to do. I would say you must get rid of him, but its probably already too late. Though in all honesty you didn’t believe that with your previous club / Murray either so why would you this time. 

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on10:52 am - Jul 8, 2018


If Rangers lose the case on Tuesday and immediately provide SD with the information, the latest SD can then give their decision is Tuesday 24th July.

This should still be plenty of time to sell the strips pre season but may prevent displays and marketing.

As for how we ended up here, well it’s another example of the incompetence of people running our club.

PS – interesting article from DavysLeftPeg slamming the board AGAIN. Last week he was accused of being Level 5 and on the boards payroll.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on10:53 am - Jul 8, 2018


REDLICHTIE

JULY 7, 2018 at 23:08

10. The unnamed third party is “hot to trot” and this is evidenced by an email from their MD :“Hope everything is okay. Just a quick note regarding the retail tender. We are now getting incredibly tight with our timeline to open the store at the end of August (if we were successful). The refit needs a complete site survey and approx. 3 weeks of manufacturing time. I’m very worried we are not going to be able to deliver for you here. Is there anything that can be done to push things along? Thanks in advance”.

“… that is the language of a party that is a willing party at the present stage but is simply concerned about timing.”

Comment : Who are this third party? There is earlier comment on possible SDI losses that these potentially include “reputational harm and/or lost goodwill arising from losing rights contained in the Agreement to a competitor.”
—————————————-

Think about James Dean’s initials, then the word ‘sports’ & all will be revealed…

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:54 am - Jul 8, 2018


Unless of course Dave is a bit like Ally, he doesn’t read contracts he just signs them.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:54 am - Jul 8, 2018


TORREJOHNBHOYJULY 8, 2018 at 09:53
Pretty sure TRFC were in need of external funding last October,Was a figure of £4m by the end of November not mentioned with the 1st trance of over a million required by the end of October?.That was including any cash already made on shirt sales.
—————–
Oh Dear.
——–
Thanks for reply

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:57 am - Jul 8, 2018


HOMUNCULUSJULY 8, 2018 at 10:54
1
0 Rate This
Unless of course Dave is a bit like Ally, he doesn’t read contracts he just signs them.
——————-
Oh! that is a good one.Some memory there HOMUNCULUS04

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on11:06 am - Jul 8, 2018


JINGSO.JIMSIE
JULY 8, 2018 at 10:53

Think about James Dean’s initials, then the word ‘sports’ & all will be revealed…
——————————–
I’m sure MA would be delighted to lose out to such a direct competitor….aye, sure.

It’s going to be very interesting to see if the SDI agreement is watertight. 

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on11:07 am - Jul 8, 2018


I think the additional funding was required in November 2017. The accounts were authorised and agreed in October 2017.

“At the time of preparation, the forecasts identified that the Group would require a minimum of £4.0m additional funding by the end of season 2017/18 in order to meet its liabilities as they fall due. The first tranche of funding is required in November 2017.”

(My bold)
 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:32 am - Jul 8, 2018


I think it should be remembered that this isn’t just happening now because of one mistake, or even a whole host of mistakes since King’s arrival. What is happening now began with the decision to sell the assets of Rangers FC to Charles Green, a man that so many internet bampots knew was not to be trusted and would sell his grandmother for a buck. His untrustworthy influence was compounded by the 5 Way Agreement which allowed him to ramp up the bears’ need to be the ‘biggest’ club in Scotland and the inevitable overspending followed.

It is the demands of all things ‘Rangers’, or ‘Rangersness’, that has brought the club back into the courts, and I doubt these periodic visits (to court) will cease for as long as this incarnation of ‘Rangers’ continues.

It was a bad seed. It is choking much of what lives around it. Relief will only come if/when it withers and dies.

View Comment

BillydugPosted on11:40 am - Jul 8, 2018


The SPFL has reiterated its “overwhelming support” for chairman Murdoch MacLennan after calls from Rangers for him to step down
SPFL stress ‘overwhelming support’ for chairman MacLennan
stv.tv

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on12:06 pm - Jul 8, 2018


REDLICHTIE
JULY 8, 2018 at 11:06
======================================

My understanding, and I haven’t looked at it in great detail, is that the deal to allow SD to match other offers is in place.

The argument is whether they can pick and choose which of the three parts they want, or if they have to match the whole thing.

I am happy to be corrected on that.

It would not surprise me if this ran for a bit (if it is not resolved quickly) and injunctions are in place for a wee while. Which would be ironic given Dave King’s predilection for kicking figurative cans down metaphorical roads.  

View Comment

spikeyheidPosted on12:27 pm - Jul 8, 2018


The TOP legal tussle with King are in his personal capacity, not as a representative of RIFC or TRFC. King has stated there are no implications o the case for ‘Rangers’. Similarly the SD case names King and Murray p as individuals. Would it be reasonable to assume King is therefore meeting his own legal expenses?

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:35 pm - Jul 8, 2018


Well, Well, Well,  Red Lichtie has been on and didn’t announce Arbroath beat Huntly 4-1 yesterday.  It was even mentioned in the stream I was watching of Shamrock Rovers v Celtic.

(Redlichtie is that eejit with the red top on).

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:48 pm - Jul 8, 2018


AllyjamboJuly 8, 2018 at 10:40 
“From the BBC on the kit deal case…..”
______________________
I love this bit:

‘Rangers lawyers told the court: …..”The Notice of Offer sent on 4 June was valid and complied with the requirements of the retail agreement. It was also made clear [my bold] that it was said to be vital to Rangers’ business model for the next and following seasons for it to launch its retail operations from 1 August…’

Can I be  alone in detecting traces of that hectoring, blustering, almost threatening  sense of entitlement that is part of the genetic makeup of RIFC plc?

It’s as if ‘Rangers lawyers’ were wagging a finger at the Judge as they spoke, making it clear that he had better  remember his place  and how important it is that he decides the right way ( i.e. in favour of ‘Rangers’)

As if the Court should make its judgments based on the same criterion that the SFA used when they cobbled up the 5-Way Agreement,  and continues to use in relation to TRFC Ltd in propagating the Big Lie.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on1:00 pm - Jul 8, 2018


Billydug said:
“The prospect of King being “cold-shouldered” – which would prevent any individual or institution regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority from dealing with him of acting on his behalf – remains a very real one.”
Fact Check. This is not entirely correct. 
From the Takeover Code:
“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”). For example, the FCA’s rules require a person authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”) not to act, or continue to act, for any person in connection with a transaction to which the Code applies if the firm has reasonable grounds for believing that the person in question, or his principal, is not complying or is not likely to comply with the Code.”
Normal financial transactions that are not subject to the Takeover Code are unaffected.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:08 pm - Jul 8, 2018


JOHN CLARKJULY 8, 2018 at 12:48

You’ve put into words my thoughts when I read that piece, John. It’s as if they think someone can be deprived of a right just because honouring that right might cause a football club from Govan a bit of a problem.

I’d like to hear them appraise a court on just why it might be that the release of one of their tops, just prior to, say, the 12th of July, might be vital to their income stream, and how delaying it past that date might reduce their income instead of just delaying it.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:18 pm - Jul 8, 2018


ANGUS1983JULY 8, 2018 at 13:00
Billydug said:“The prospect of King being “cold-shouldered” – which would prevent any individual or institution regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority from dealing with him of acting on his behalf – remains a very real one.”Fact Check. This is not entirely correct. From the Takeover Code:“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”). For example, the FCA’s rules require a person authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”) not to act, or continue to act, for any person in connection with a transaction to which the Code applies if the firm has reasonable grounds for believing that the person in question, or his principal, is not complying or is not likely to comply with the Code.”Normal financial transactions that are not subject to the Takeover Code are unaffected.
_______________

Regardless of how the cold shoulder might affect King and the club directly, it must surely prevent him buying further shares, along with the rest of the concert party, while, at the same time, be a red flag to any legitimate financial institution he, and the club, might approach. Their bad credit rating must be going downhill at quite a rate of knots, I am sure.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on1:38 pm - Jul 8, 2018


Possibly, Ally, but only if such activity falls under the auspices of the Takeover Code. I don’t think it would be relevant to other members of the concert party – it’s King that the TOP are targetting.
I suspect it’s entirely because of this lack of effect on the wider situation that King has chosen to thumb his nose at the TOP.  
I think the ‘red flag to others’ thing, which of course is entirely informal, may affect him more. But, to be honest, probably not that much.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on1:41 pm - Jul 8, 2018


It seems that £3 million was spent to dread some quick headlines and hubris among the fanbase.
DId DCK expect Sports Direct to sign a new deal with what appears to be highly onerous conditions to the advantage of SD and for them not to make use of it?
The underlying response of the Ibrox entities to court cases based on contracts signed by them seems to be use of what they believe to be a joker card marked WATP.
And yet King is still there with a following who believes in him and what he says.
Incredible stuff.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on1:41 pm - Jul 8, 2018


HOMUNCULUS
JULY 8, 2018 at 12:06
 My understanding, and I haven’t looked at it in great detail, is that the deal to allow SD to match other offers is in place.
The argument is whether they can pick and choose which of the three parts they want, or if they have to match the whole thing.
———————————————————————————————-
As I understand it, SDI’s contention is that the notification of the Third Party Offer was imperfectly served (my words, where did I hear something like that before?) i.e. it lacked the detail required by the Agreement to enable them to reach a conclusion on whether to match all or part of the offer :

“28. The response of SDIR to that was to allege that that Notice of Offer was not compliant with the terms of paragraph 5.4 of Schedule 3 which it will be recalled provided: “Where a Third Party Offer/Notice of Offer relates to all or any combination of the Offered Rights, or where there are any connected commercial arrangements, the Third Party Offer/Notice of Offer shall set out the details (including Material Terms) of each element separately…”

There is in fact a provision in the agreement that “Rangers shall reject any Third Party Offer that does not permit it to disclose the information required…” so that should not have been an impediment to TRFC in meeting this obligation. This is set out in Section 26 of the judgement i.e. Para 5.2 of the agreement.

TRFC however contend that the notification was fully compliant with the requirements of the Agreement (see sections 29-31 of the judgement) :
 
“In contrast the defendants submit that there is no such obligation by reference to paragraph 5.4, and that such a requirement would make no commercial sense because in fact there are a whole raft of rights encompassed within the Offered Rights definition.” (Section 29)

My own feeling is that it seems odd that wording in a type of agreement that SDI would likely have executed and probably enforced many times over the years should be capable of such fundamentally different interpretations, putting SDI’s financial interests in serious jeopardy as a consequence.

Scottish Football needs strong Arbroath.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on1:53 pm - Jul 8, 2018


Not dread get in my previous comment

View Comment

roddybhoyPosted on2:00 pm - Jul 8, 2018


Think we will soon be hearing from Rangers on how they have been duped by that contract with SPDIRECT …..sounds familiar !!!!  Surely though King and Murray aint that stupid to sign a contract like that and not realise the possible consequensus ??? Could it be a case of something so bad was about to happen with the old contract that maybe Big Mick let them pay him £3m to kick the can down the road a bit longer and change the terms and this is where we are at now……………..Probably talking mince BUT SURELY SURELY they knew the consequensus of that contract and they have done what they are best at , deflect , deny , lie and stick their heads in the sand hope it would all go away

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:01 pm - Jul 8, 2018


REDLICHTIE
JULY 8, 2018 at 13:41
============================

On thing which did occur to me, and it is pure speculation, is the expertise of the lawyers acting for both sides when the contract was put in place. Specifically the differences between civil law in Scotland and England.

You may recall Ticketus thought their rights to tickets at Ibrox for the old club survived insolvency. The Court of Session disabused them of that understanding. The difference in the law in the two jurisdictions. 

As I say, pure speculation on my part, however were Rangers as well advised as SD when this was set up in the first place. I imagine Mike Ashley uses experts in this field, it is what he does after all. 

View Comment

HelpumootPosted on2:02 pm - Jul 8, 2018


James Blair – “…… which impacts upon the ability to bring in players in the transfer window in August and, hence on on-field performance which, in turn, impacts upon your prize-money.”
The Judge -“It’s logical to conclude then, Mr Blair, that if you have more money you can buy better players. And, as you say, if you have better players it would have a positive impact on on-field performances which, in turn, impacts upon the number of titles you win. Have you changed your opinion since LNS then?”
(Okay, I made up the Judge’s response, but Blair did say those words according to the judge’s finding.)
Its hilarious. A Respected (up to that point) Scottish judge actually asked the country to believe that a club fielding players it actually couldn’t afford did not gain any advantage by doing so. 
I wonder if they’ll throw Nimmo Smith under a bus.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:32 pm - Jul 8, 2018


Haven’t seen this posted . Another good yin gone .
https://www.scotsman.com/news/alan-gilzean-ex-scotland-dundee-and-tottenham-striker-dies-aged-79-1-4765766

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on3:14 pm - Jul 8, 2018


HOMUNCULUS
JULY 8, 2018 at 14:01
 
On thing which did occur to me, and it is pure speculation, is the expertise of the lawyers acting for both sides when the contract was put in place. Specifically the differences between civil law in Scotland and England.
You may recall Ticketus thought their rights to tickets at Ibrox for the old club survived insolvency. The Court of Session disabused them of that understanding. The difference in the law in the two jurisdictions. 
—————————————————————————————————
That thought occurred to me too. I wondered if the fact that the injunction was sought in the High Court of Justice in London indicated that the contract was governed by English Law – a normal legal environment for SDI and probably their preferred arrangement.

I’m sure though that RIFC/TRFC had/have world-class lawyers on this.

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on3:28 pm - Jul 8, 2018


In one corner we have Mike Ashley a successful billionaire business man who will have a team who deals with rights and retails contracts on a daily basis.

My guess is he wins more court cases, including the more important ones, than he losses.

In the other corner we have a magnificently coiffured accountant with varying success in business and a convicted tax dodger who doesn’t seem to do overly well in important court cases against him.

I know who Paddy Power would be offering the longer odds on.

Regardless of how this one pans out it is yet another cock up in terms of the operations of the Blue Room. 

Maybe the club from Ibrox are under more scrutiny but can there be another club in Scotland where the admin and legal operations appear to be a total shambles?

They are either really desperate or completely incompetent.

Given the squirrels  being launched regarding Murdoch MacLennan would anyone really trust the opinions of the Ibrox board in relation to corporate governance or, lord forbid, them proposing an alternative SPFL chairman?

I admire individuality and the right to be different as much as the next person  but can anyone really say that being so out of step with others and reality, in so many areas, is really that healthy? 

View Comment

HelpumootPosted on3:54 pm - Jul 8, 2018


WOTTPI
“I admire individuality and the right to be different as much as the next person.”
That made me smile ?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:09 pm - Jul 8, 2018


DK is a dead man walking.
The only question is what will cause his removal first and who takes the blame?
That last word is interesting because blame is about putting responsibility for ones actions on to another.
It works particularly well with an audience for whom  taking responsibility is as alien a concept as  salad,  dentistry and forgiveness is to a Glaswegian ( I got the from the Long Glasgow Kiss and as a Glaswegian born and buttered it made me smile).
The Takeover Panel, the JPDT , loans being repaid, or just running out of liquidity, the reason for the demise of the current version of Rangers will mean nothing,  unless there is an investigation into how a criminal has been allowed to become part of Scottish football, otherwise it’s Groundhog Day.
It will be a lot easier to conduct such an investigation when even the loyalist of bluenoses accept they and their thinking has been their worst and only enemy, not SPFL Chairman, not PL, not Phil Mac Giollabhain or Celtic bloggers who have only held up a mirror they fear looking into.
In the meantime they get taken for a ride in a chariot of lies of their own making.
Destination hell because of its said healing properties.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on4:24 pm - Jul 8, 2018


There is a class of freelance chancers whose only interest is the playing of their game. They have no real interest in building businesses or the long term. They like to make money but it is the game itself which fires them. Their currency is chaos and the generation of uncertainty.
There is no sense of corporate or social responsibility which are regarded as things for fools.
The DCK Rangers is killing itself and destroying other things as it goes.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:52 pm - Jul 8, 2018


Just so you all have advance warning and can batten down the hatches. 

Its boycott o’clock with the good people over at follow follow again.

Operation D.O.T.T

For too long we have allowed certain individuals with self serving agendas to exploit matters. Our Club is finally fighting back, but the only thing more powerful to Our Club is Our Supporters in Unison demanding the right thing..that those running our game are independent and the bodies they represent show correct governance.

It starts with MaClennan the SPFL head man who is on the payroll of Uncle Des and O’Brien. The Club do not accept this and it is for us to help get that message accross.

DOTo Them

Apparently he wants a lot of it to happen when the members are at Church, though I think he might be aiming at the wrong denomination.

The SPFL sponsors.. close any Ladbrokes accounts and in mass numbers, copy them in on Twitter and Facebook. The message

“They fund a corrupt organisation, and you won’t give them your custom until the conflict of interest issues are resolved with MaClennan’s resignation”.

View Comment

theredpillPosted on5:07 pm - Jul 8, 2018


I was going to paste this but there are too many bad words ?                                           https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2018/07/07/coming-next-door-to-home/ 

View Comment

Comments are closed.