When the Scottish Premier League (SPL) and the Scottish Football league (SFL) merged in 2013 to form The Scottish Professional Football League, the word “professional” has been accepted as applying only to the football side of the business.
However, should supporters, the ultimate paying customers, not expect the administration and governance of the game to be a lot more professional than is evident from the handling, by both the SPFL (SPL/SFL) and the Scottish Football Association (SFA), of the descent into liquidation of Rangers FC, which started in 2000, as well as the subsequent damage limitation attempts from March 2011, that have had serious consequences for the reputation of Scottish football of being a professionally managed business?
Most folk would not argue that there is a glaringly obvious need for a more professional form of football governance, but the question is how can that be achieved? One way towards achieving that aim is the subject of what follows.
there is a glaringly obvious need for a more professional form of football governance
Back in the 90’s the Government embarked on yet another an exercise to modernise the Civil Service using a technique known then as Market Testing. The idea was that units, like Information Technology, Human Resource or Office Maintenance within large Civil Service Government Ministries, should be compared with what was available in the private sector to see if the service the internal units provided in a Ministry could be provided more efficiently from external sources.
At the time, internal units operated to their own standards and were answerable only to themselves for the level of service they provided to the users in other internal units. As a consequence there were no defined levels of service, the users were largely dissatisfied with the service they were receiving, the perception of the IT or HR or OM units was poor damaging their moral and, unlike the private sector, the customer was not the king but the serf.
Before such internal units could be tested there was a lot of preparatory work needed, the most important of which was a change in the culture to one where the customer became king. This was done through the reluctant acceptance that change was necessary in order for those in internal units to hold on to their jobs, followed by the joint establishment in discussion with service users of the level of service that was acceptable to them and the cost in financial terms to the Ministry of that service.
It was a painful and effort intensive process of itself but it did result in a change in culture that not only helped internal staff hold on to their jobs but changed the perception of those both inside and outside the units for the better.
All very fine you say but why am I reading this on Scottish Football Monitor, what is the relevance to the lack of professional governance?
Well I think it fair to say that the Scottish Football Association (SFA) has never at any time in its history been held in such low regard by their ultimate customers, the football supporters, without whom there would be no SFA.
In the public perception, measuring both football and governance performance, the SFA would be lucky to score 10 for incompetency rather than the more likely and damning similar score for corruption, where 10 was the worst possible score.
In spite of this and protected by the inertia in SPFL clubs who should be voicing the concerns of their paying customers to the SFA, there appears no appetite or indeed mechanism for change. This is where market testing comes in.
When viewed from a business perspective the SFA is a service provider to the customers via their clubs. In a sense the clubs act, or rather should act, as agents for their supporters and become the “customer” with whom the SFA provide a number of Services. These services should not be hard to identify, for example.
- Refereeing Services
- Disciplinary Services
- Licensing Services
- Auditing as in Policing Services.
- Fit and Proper Person Services.
The Refereeing Service
Given the current, one might even say perpetual, dissatisfaction of refereeing standards, it, is one activity that could benefit from being treated as the kind of service the SFA might provide to the SPFL.
Under such an approach
- Refereeing would be split into two parts.
- The SFA would be responsible for the recruitment, wage structuring, training and match appointments as the service provider (having taken the nature of the game to be officiated into account and after discussion with SPFL).
- Monitoring and evaluation of a referee’s performance would be the responsibility of the SPFL as the customer.
- Referees or ex refs from anywhere (not just Scotland) hired by SPFL would evaluate performance to a standard set by the SPFL after agreement of standards with SFA.
- Splitting the appointment and evaluation process. would prevent any one person being able to exert any undue individual influence on referees which protects the integrity of individuals, the service itself and referees appointed.
- It would lead to a higher standard of referee because the customer would be setting the standard not the supplier (as happens everywhere in business but football)
- If standards were not met over a period or a particular game required meeting a standard not possible at the time, the SPFL would be free to hire their own referees from wherever they could get them.
- This freedom under a service approach would reduce, if not remove entirely, the burden of suspected allegiance that bedevils every decision made by match referees by supporters to the detriment of the referees and so of Scottish football.
- The corollary is the SFA would also be free to offer their referees to other national associations encouraging the SFA to recruit and train to the highest level possible (and charge the other associations for the service).
- Competition for appointments would raise standards and if Scottish referees consistently reached higher standards, they would be in more demand outside Scotland which gives them a financial incentive to be the best referee they can be.
- Any national association could adopt this service provider approach leading to an international professional refereeing occupation in a world where football is almost a daily event somewhere requiring a steady supply of good referees.
Feedback
Refereeing as a service has been chosen as but one example of how to establish a customer/service provider relationship between the SFA and SPFL, but the principle would apply to the other services listed. SFM readers are invited to give their views not just on the potential hurdles, like inertia, no driving force etc, but also the benefits of overcoming such hurdles if the approach were applied to those services plus any not on the list that would lend themselves to the approach.
Phil’s latest more than suggesting that the 16m revenue used to derive the 300k profit needed some “soft” assistance.
http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/ugly-history-repeat-scottish-football/
From the Sports Integrity Initiative, more concerns about the governance of Scottish Football. A hard-hitting piece.
STEVIEBCMARCH 24, 2017 at 14:27
===============================
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I just wan’t sure if a loan would constitute income.
It does tend to make things a bit misleading though.
If the income exceeded expenditure and there was an operational profit (just under £300k) then why did they have to borrow the best part of £3m. Even if you take the real figure, a loss of about £250k it still doesn’t explain the £3m.
I suppose it’s a cashflow thing.
You can tell accounts aren’t really my thing.
HOMUNCULUS
MARCH 24, 2017 at 18:05
STEVIEBC
MARCH 24, 2017 at 14:27
===============================
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I just wan’t sure if a loan would constitute income…
===============================
Unfortunately, in this RIFC case, I don’t think I have made it any clearer.
Phil is suggesting that his source is claiming that the loan was indeed included in the Revenue number – which would be highly creative, and very naughty – and would have to be ‘corrected’ before the auditors appeared.
If I took a wild guess: King started with a ballpark ‘profit’ figure – then told his ‘young assistant’, [per Phil], to work his way backwards to produce the unaudited interim results.
STEVIEBC
MARCH 24, 2017 at 18:24
====================================
I haven’t read Phil Mac’s piece Stevie so I can’t really comment on that.
However if the figures released include “income” which should not be reported as such then you can hardly be blamed for that.
You clarified what those figures should have included, not what they did include.
If it transpires that they did inflate the income based on loans then I’m sure they will be taken to task for it by the relevant authorities.
I’d caution against speculation that the revenue figures have been manufactured to produce a profit. Loans do not form part of revenue by any accounting practice.
There is information out there that supports a a revenue figure in the region of that reported. ST numbers are up by 5,000, there was a 20% increase on ST prices since last season, home league gates are up to just under 49,000, the financial distribution model for Premiership clubs means that the largest part of the guaranteed payment for the season (approx £750k) is paid in Aug., while last season the bulk of Rangers Championship prize money was withheld to finally pay the fines imposed on the Oldco by LNS.
The figures are in line with what I expected given the known knowns. There are also known unknowns in the extent of legal fees, contractual pay-offs, and staged transfer payments during the reporting period.
Looking forward, there are also unknown unknowns to come in respect of the legal cases against SD and the dismissal of the Ibrox 3.
EASYJAMBO
MARCH 24, 2017 at 19:18
=======================================
Likewise thanks EJ, I think between yourself and Stevie I am now aware of what should be included in those figures. Like you say they make sense based on the “known knowns”
However it does get me back to my rather naive question.
If there was an operating profit of c£300k and an actual loss of c£250k, why did they need to borrow the bast part of £3m. I can only assume that was a cashflow issue. That they needed that money to pay bills which fell due prior to the income which would cover the expense had been received. I hope that makes sense.
I know it’s putting you on a spot but would you care to conjecture on the likely profit / loss for this year. I would absolutely understand it if you, or anyone else simply said it was impossible to put any reasonable figure on that.
I can’t go along with Phil’s latest assertion, that the interim accounts have treated £2.9m of the soft loans as income, with a view to “tickling up” the bottom line.
That would be an act of total lunacy. Even if you were stupid enough to do it, you would at least go all in, and get a profit on the bottom line.
I’ll just put that one in the same box as the “diverted water” story.
Homunculus asked earlier why the loans were so much larger than the loss shown in the interim accounts. Those accounts only deal with revenue items. Any capital items, such as buying players, would appear in a balance sheet- except there isn’t one. Didn’t they pay £1.8m, or similar, for Garner? Add the signing on fees for the rest of the summer acquistions, and you can easily see why the loans far exceeded the loss.
Homunculus March 24, 2017 at 19:31
However it does get me back to my rather naive question.
If there was an operating profit of c£300k and an actual loss of c£250k, why did they need to borrow the bast part of £3m. I can only assume that was a cashflow issue. That they needed that money to pay bills which fell due prior to the income which would cover the expense had been received. I hope that makes sense.
I know it’s putting you on a spot but would you care to conjecture on the likely profit / loss for this year. I would absolutely understand it if you, or anyone else simply said it was impossible to put any reasonable figure on that.
==========================
I made the same comment about the £2.9M in my first post after the accounts were published, but I think you are right about it being most likely a cash flow issue.
According to the full year accounts, £11.4M of Rangers ST income for this full season came via monthly installment plans or merchant services (credit cards). Given the financial predicament of the club, that money will only be released to the club as they play each home league game during the season, rather than as a lump sum at the start. It works out at around £600k per home game.
There may have been some large outlays due in the first six month period, such as signing on fees, legal fees, staged transfer fees (Garner?) etc. Those one offs may not be repeated in the second half of the financial year and, together with the regular £600k income payments and cup runs, the cash flow will even out over the full year.
It is impossible to predict the full year loss with so little information supplied in the accounts. However, if my amateur accounting hypotheses is correct then the loss for the full year should work out something close to the £2.9M borrowed thus far. It could be less, depending on how the rest of the season plays out re the cup and final league position.
NEEPHEID
MARCH 24, 2017 at 20:21
==========================================
I’m with you, so basically a lot of the money spent is not included in those figures, and that the expenditure not included is covered by the loans which are also not included in the figures.
Would I then be correct in saying that the interim results not only don’t show a profit (they actually show a loss) but they are also an incomplete picture of the first six months of the financial year.
There was spend (not included) which was covered by loans (also not included).
EASYJAMBO
MARCH 24, 2017 at 20:29
===============================
Once again, thank you.
As a layman that makes sense to me.
Over the course of the financial year Rangers expect to generate c£3m less than they earn. As such the club will need to borrow that amount of money over the course of the entire year. The losses for the year will be about £3m, depending on income from cup games etc.
However due to bills having to be paid before payments are received the loans had to be provided early in the financial year. In order to pay bills as they fell due.
So they knew the club could not see out the year without those loans.
Sorry. But it’s a song of love and peace. After the past few days. I certainly need it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN4AcFzxtdE
easyJamboMarch 24, 2017 at 19:18
I’d caution against speculation that the revenue figures have been manufactured to produce a profit. Loans do not form part of revenue by any accounting practice.
There is information out there that supports a a revenue figure in the region of that reported. ST numbers are up by 5,000, there was a 20% increase on ST prices since last season, home league gates are up to just under 49,000, the financial distribution model for Premiership clubs means that the largest part of the guaranteed payment for the season (approx £750k) is paid in Aug., while last season the bulk of Rangers Championship prize money was withheld to finally pay the fines imposed on the Oldco by LNS.
The figures are in line with what I expected given the known knowns. There are also known unknowns in the extent of legal fees, contractual pay-offs, and staged transfer payments during the reporting period.
Looking forward, there are also unknown unknowns to come in respect of the legal cases against SD and the dismissal of the Ibrox 3.
++++++++++++++++++++
Two things.
1. Is there something going on with income recognition?
2. The legal bills and potential compensation should be provisioned for in the accounts but perhaps not at the half year unaudited stage.
Homunculus March 24, 2017 at 20:47
So they knew the club could not see out the year without those loans.
==================
If you recall from the full year accounts, the forecast funding requirement for the full year was originally £4M. That was reduced to £3.75M after they reached the LC semi final. The figure has now been reduced further to the £2.9M already drawn down, meaning that their current financial projections puts them £1.1M ahead of expectations.
There is nothing untoward with that sort of planned approach if the end result is profitability. The problem is that the club continues to overspend year on year and I don’t yet see them reaching a break even position for at least a couple more years.
The continuing level of spending creates a financial doping situation, and facilitates a clear sporting advantage, which would result in sanctions by the SFA if there was any integrity in the Scottish game. However, as the SFA has failed to persuade our clubs to sign up to FFP, there is no deterrent to clubs behaving in this way (other than potential UEFA licensing issues).
The cumulative losses of the newco since 2012 now stands at an eye-watering £36M, with maybe another £2.5M to be added by the end of the season. That just shouldn’t be allowed to happen in an honest and fair game.
Well well well
A non porky ……….in print as well …….Is it the first ever?
From the Sun
“But I now spend a huge amount on things like litigation, and there is no fun in litigating with Mike Ashley.
There’s nothing fun about that at all, nothing enjoyable or satisfying about it. But I have to do it.”
I should have added that the £36M represents the Operating Losses. The club has reduced the losses, on paper, by revaluation of assets and negative goodwill.
Some good insights on the “interim” accounts that were magicked up for no particular requirement we are aware of.
A set of back of a fag packet figures that got really good coverage and confirm to all their friendly tabloids that the new operation is slipping nicely into profit as part of what would seem to be a normal, long-term business plan.
Plain sailing and all that, so “Move along, nothing to see here”.
But what is really happening and why come over in person?
I doubt it was to meet the new manager and have deep and meaningful football conversations that we were fed or to lead the start of a push for clearance to play in Europe next season.
I can guess that there was a call from the “soft” investors for a “full and frank” somewhere to agree how to face some real issues.
Issues that all have serious cost implications for this eternally loss making enterprise.
A get together with a horrible agenda covering stuff that just won’t go away.
– the next steps following the Takeover Panel Appeal decision (because more than King will be in that frame).
– the current Mike Ashley stuff playing out in the English courts.
– the need to come a decision on the unlawful dismissal of the management team.
– etc and more
If I was one of the guys who had provided what is effectively now unsecured, junk-bond finance in someone else’s “project” I’d finally be asking the questions I should have asked before agreeing the first penny.
I’d really want to know how my South African based leader planned to lead us out of the mess he’d led us into.
And with the benefit of hindsight I’d all the while be looking at my own personal options.
HomunculusMarch 24, 2017 at 20:35
NEEPHEID MARCH 24, 2017 at 20:21 ==========================================
I’m with you, so basically a lot of the money spent is not included in those figures, and that the expenditure not included is covered by the loans which are also not included in the figures.
Would I then be correct in saying that the interim results not only don’t show a profit (they actually show a loss) but they are also an incomplete picture of the first six months of the financial year.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Without a balance sheet, we know nothing about loans, or what they were spent on. A lot of money was spent in the summer on players. The cost of players is taken to the balance sheet, as are the loans to finance them, so if there was a balance sheet, it might show player registrations as an asset at £3m (just a figure I’ve pulled from the air) and on the other side ol the balance sheet would be the corresponding loan, shown as a liability.
What the “accounts” show is that every pound brought in as income (and a bit more) is being spent on the day to day outgoings, such as wages, utilities,etc. There is no money to spend on anything else, such as players. So if players are needed, someone must lend them the money.
It looks to me as if King, having driven the share price down to make it cheap for him to buy in, now wants to drive the share price back up, which will both reduce demand for the 20p offer he is supposedly going to make, and might conceivably allow him to get out at a profit. He’ll need a very gullible buyer, though. Isn’t share price manipulation said to be a hallmark of King’s dealings in South Africa?
I know most of us on SFM greet statements from Dave King, the Ranger’s Board(s) and the Club with a high degree of scepticism, but there is no way that the accounts for the 6 months to 31st December 2016 include the October loans in the revenue figures.
While the published accounts are a joke in terms of disclosure, the comments that are included to explain revenue growth are entirely believable:
1) Increased season ticket/attendance revenue on their promotion to the Premiership
2) Increased central funds from being in the Premiership vs Championship
3) Increased sponsorship and commercial revenue, again due to promotion to the Premiership and, no doubt, the prospect of a number of “OF” games.
The loans in October were needed for 2 main reasons: 1) Joe Garner’s transfer fee of around £1.5 million in August and 2) Timing of receiving season ticket revenue – most season tickets are paid for in a number of instalments, so not all of the cash is received up front.
The bad news for Rangers is that the second half of the season is more challenging than the first in a cash flow sense: winter break with no gate revenue and players on multi-year contracts and non-playing staff need to be paid through to 30th June. Adding to Ranger’s pain will be Barton’s pay-off as well as any settlement due to Warburton/Weir/McParland.
So while the 31st December results portray an almost break even position, the full year results won’t be as positive.
It would appear that John James disagrees with you chaps, I wonder where his “forensic analysis” and meticulous research has gone wrong this time.
Homunculus March 25, 2017 at 10:26
It would appear that John James disagrees with you chaps, I wonder where his “forensic analysis” and meticulous research has gone wrong this time.
=======================
We might as well all give up as JJ has clearly got a better grasp on reality that the rest of us.
Lots of good stuff on here about the farcical Rangers interim accounts, and analysis over their actual level of loss/debt.
One thing is clear to me though. ‘Rangers’ are free to say and do anything they like without any fear of the media lifting the bonnet, or the SFA asking questions. If they spent £20M on a player this summer the media would be too busy saying GIRUY to Celtic to even ask where the money came from.
neepheidMarch 24, 2017 at 16:48
‘…From the Sports Integrity Initiative, more concerns about the governance of Scottish Football. A hard-hitting piece.’
_________________________
That was a splendid link to a splendid piece, neepheid.
I think the piece ( and I repeat the link you provided http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/ugly-history-repeat-scottish-football/ ) should be read and digested by anyone with any real concern about the integrity of the Governance of Scottish Football. And, of course, about the reluctance of the Scottish print media and the BBC even to ask the questions that need to be asked.( of course, it goes deeper than merely not asking questions: the SMSM , with BBC Radio Scotlaand up there in the van, actually acts as propagandists for untruth)
And, it seems to me and others, that those in positions of authority in our individual clubs must KNOW that untruths are being , and have been for more than a decade, told by Scottish Football on behalf first of SDM’s club, and then of that same club when owned by CW, and , for the last nearly 5 years , on behalf of the new TRFC/RIFC .
And have, for base reasons, meekly accepted/ happily endorsed that fact.
Being supporters of particular football clubs gives us no licence to keep rogue businessmen in business.
If we do, we ourselves become cheats, and can derive no pleasure in a wholly false and contrived artificial ‘competitive’ sport that, fundmentally, is rigged.
easyJamboMarch 25, 2017 at 11:43
‘…We might as well all give up as JJ has clearly got a better grasp on reality that the rest of us.’
_________
That made me laugh, eJ!
I know little of these things, of course, except to be sceptical of ‘statements’ emanating from the likes of King( and, to be fair, I am sceptical of ‘business’ generally, in as much as I assume that companies will always put the best gloss they can on their operations, and perhaps , like politicians, be a bit economical with the truth).
What interests me is that a quick look at Companies House ( Rangers International Football Club) shows that the statement has not been submitted to them.
If it purports to be a serious statement relating to the finances of a company whose shares are tradeable on some kind of however gimcrack and low level ‘market’, oughtn’t it to have been made to Companies House?
One would assume that even a halfwit would get it right from time to time. From the same DR article;
–
Which is what we were told originally. Waiver was agreed..
Again, what we were told at the time. Rangers agreed to waive compensation, but these ingrates then welshed on the deal they themselves brokered.
But wait;
How can both be correct? Or am I missing something?
Trumpian Truths
FinlochMarch 25, 2017 at 08:05
‘….And with the benefit of hindsight I’d all the while be looking at my own personal options..’
_______________________
And, Finloch, we can be absolutely sure that if we, who have nothing to lose in terms of immediate personal cash, are watching King like a hawk, the guys who do have dosh to lose will very much more keenly be watching him.
And are very likely not to be terribly impressed by what they see. And may be somewhat angered.
The old adage about there being no honour among thieves pops into mind. As do other quaint expressions about throwing good money after bad.
Easyjambo and anyone else who understands accounts
I know EJ has explained to us how it might well be the case that the RIFC figures are reasonably accurate, and that the borrowings in October may have been required to cover the delay in receipt of monthly ST payments, so the figures are more or less in line with last season’s interim fag packet figures.
I was wondering, though, if the ‘income’ figure might include the full value of STs for the full season, rather than monies received to date, and actually be covered directly by the loans, and so the assertion, by some, that the ‘income’ for the 6 month period includes the loans might well be technically correct?
This doesn’t make the least difference to the true position, which is probably pretty much as claimed, though it certainly wouldn’t be the done thing in a company run by decent business people, but is no more than a ploy to help RIFC/King pull the wool over the eyes of their target audience to produce ‘improved’ half year results.
If I am correct, the loans being included as income would be no more serious an act than a deflection from the truth and par for the course at Ibrox!
Some people just can’t stop themselves from lying, even when it really isn’t necessary, as, if King hopes that the figures might discourage the take-up of shares should he make a serious offer, it is unlikely to have any effect on those not emotionally invested, ie anyone who originally invested on the strength of the prospectus!
Of course, if they have included money as income that is still outstanding, then they should surely have made reference to all contingent liabilities!
Just another wee thought, if King (or the 3 bears) end up having to produce a formal offer document, would they not have to produce audited accounts, to, say, 31 December 2016? Not much excuse for not doing it, as they already have the figures to hand!
AJ – who knows?
We can speculate but can only validate with signed off, full year accounts.
But we do enjoy speculating. 😉
The phrase: “Lipstick on a pig” comes to mind though when glancing at these interim numbers.
No sympathy whatsoever with the 3 Bears.
RRM or not, with a 5 minutes ‘due diligence’ surf of t’internet would probably have confirmed their gut feeling about King.
Mibbees they just let their hearts rule their heads – and cheque books – and King being a chancer spotted their weak point?
One thing is for certain IMO: King is most definitely NOT a RRM.
He comes across as a dispassionate, cold, calculating business man with no regard for ethics or morals. He just wants the cash.
And you just know how this is going to go down.
King buggers off to his SA bolthole – leaving the 3 Bears to carry the rusty can and to pacify the raging bears when the wheels come off the TRFC bogey.
There is no statutory obligation on RIFC to produce interim accounts of any sort. If the company was still listed on a stock exchange, they would have had to produce proper interim accounts, just like Celtic do. But of course stock exchange listing is history by now, and RIFC are under no more obligation to produce interim accounts than Falkirk or Clyde.
The production of these “fag packet” interims serve no official purpose whatsoever. They don’t have to be filed anywhere. So it’s interesting to speculate as to why they were produced, and why now.
It’s surely no coincidence that they appeared just before one of King’s rare visits to Glasgow. That allowed Level5 to get Union Jack positively briefed.
King might be worried that too many will snap his hand off at 20p per share. Some figures spun as positive can only help to keep shareholders onside.
And of course it generates hope among the fans that the corner has finally been turned, and talk of huge warchests can resume. That converts nicely to Season Ticket sales in a month or two.
A very cheap and very successful PR exercise- and that’s really all there is to it.
On the question of how ST sales should be accounted for, the money should be apportioned to the relevant accounting period. So let’s say that £30 million of tickets are sold by 30 June. All that money relates to games played in the following accounting period. The money is up front payment for future games. So if interim accounts are produced for the 6 months to 31/12, you look at how many home league games are played before and after 31?12, and allocate the money on that basis.
It isn’t really relevant when the money is paid, either up front in one sum, or by instalments.The timing of receipts is critical for cash flow, but not for calculating the profit or loss of a period. The profit/loss is based on when the money is earned, which is when the games are played.
So the 6 month interims should include approximately half the annual ST income, plus any receipts for home cup games played before 31/12, and any walk-up income for league games in that period.
neepheidMarch 25, 2017 at 19:00
I think, because the interim ‘results’ were not a requirement, that RIFC/King can more or less get away with what they want as regards the content, and will only have a problem if it becomes obvious, when the audited year end accounts are produced, that major porkies were included on the back of that fag packet. That problem, rather than a legal one, would most likely come in the shape of angry bears, fooled into buying STs in the belief that a minor reduction in a half-yearly loss amounted to a genuine challenge to Celtic.
I doubt that anyone who might be considering taking up King’s ‘offer’ would be taken in by these ‘interims’, though I am still amazed that anyone other than a bear bought RIFC plc shares in the first place, so who knows who might still believe in the tooth fairy?
I wonder, though, if a substantial shareholder might have a right to challenge/question the figures and demand a more detailed report! Especially as he has a decision to make soon on the viability of the company’s shares!
Would The Rangers be able to use these unaudited interim results as evidence towards their qualification to the SFA for playing in Europe next season? FFP and all that. Surely not. The first deadline is 31 March.
MELBOURNEDEEMARCH 25, 2017 at 10:22 10 Votes
I know most of us on SFM greet statements from Dave King, the Ranger’s Board(s) and the Club with a high degree of scepticism, but there is no way that the accounts for the 6 months to 31st December 2016 include the October loans in the revenue figures.While the published accounts are a joke in terms of disclosure, the comments that are included to explain revenue growth are entirely believable:1) Increased season ticket/attendance revenue on their promotion to the Premiership2) Increased central funds from being in the Premiership vs Championship3) Increased sponsorship and commercial revenue, again due to promotion to the Premiership and, no doubt, the prospect of a number of “OF” games.
———————-
And on that note we are often told the SPFL needs a strong the rangers, yet it looks like the rangers need the SPFL more than the SPFL needs trfc
ALLYJAMBOMARCH 25, 2017 at 14:44
“I was wondering, though, if the ‘income’ figure might include the full value of STs for the full season, rather than monies received to date, and actually be covered directly by the loans, and so the assertion, by some, that the ‘income’ for the 6 month period includes the loans might well be technically correct?”
——————————————————————————————————–
Season ticket revenue is recognised based on the proportion of home games played.
Last year, Rangers had played 10 home games in the Championship by 31st December out of 18 home games for the full year – so 55.6% of season ticket revenue earned in the half year accounts, regardless of when it was paid.
This year Rangers have played 11 home games by 31st December, but they should end up playing 19 home games by the end of the season, so 57.9% of season ticket revenue earned. That leaves only 42.1% to be recognised in the second half of the season.
Last year, they had played 3 League Cup games by 31st December – combined attendances of 59,708.
This year, in the new League Cup format, they have played a total of 7 games by 31st December, including a defeat at Ibrox to Celtic – combined attendances of 174,249.
Last year, Rangers also played 4 games in the Challenge Cup by 31st December – combined attendances 58,448. No Challenge Cup games played this year as they are in the Premiership.
So with about 5,000 more season ticket sales for this year, increased ticket prices, higher attendances from the supporters of visiting clubs, a slightly higher % of season ticket earned in the first half of the year and increased attendances in Cup competitions, the reported £3.5 million increase in game day revenue makes sense. It certainly doesn’t include a bogus £3 million from the October loans. Sometimes we have to live with the facts and not make up our own “Fake News”.
jimboMarch 25, 2017 at 19:59 (Edit)
This from previous page suggests those “accounts” are not acceptable but there is always a Bryson perspective hopefully not shared by UEFA.
http://www.sfmonitor.org/towards-a-more-professional-sfa/?cid=155845
NEEPHEIDMARCH 25, 2017 at 19:00
They don’t have to be filed anywhere. So it’s interesting to speculate as to why they were produced, and why now.It’s surely no coincidence that they appeared just before one of King’s rare visits to Glasgow. That allowed Level5 to get Union Jack positively briefed.King might be worried that too many will snap his hand off at 20p per share. Some figures spun as positive can only help to keep shareholders onside.And of course it generates hope among the fans that the corner has finally been turned, and talk of huge warchests can resume. That converts nicely to Season Ticket sales in a month or two.A very cheap and very successful PR exercise- and that’s really all there is to it.
———————-
We are told or are least to believe that if king can’t come up with the money for 20p a share (by mid April) he will be cold shouldered. Basically no company will deal with them.
1. what company deals with the sale and Distribution of ST? If the company is out with anything from ibrox (a Ticketus.type thing)would they now have a problem with dealing with ibrox ST sale’s if king is cold shouldered.Would this cause a problem with ST renewals just around the corner?
Auldheid March 25, 2017 at 22:10
jimboMarch 25, 2017 at 19:59 (Edit)
This from previous page suggests those “accounts” are not acceptable but there is always a Bryson perspective hopefully not shared by UEFA.
http://www.sfmonitor.org/towards-a-more-professional-sfa/?cid=155845
===========================
STV (Andy Coyle and Grant Russell) doesn’t believe they will be banned next season for failing to meet FFP criteria, but the likeliest scenario will be that some controls will be placed on their finances and recruitment.
https://stv.tv/sport/football/1374309-explained-will-rangers-need-approval-to-play-in-europe/
Thanks Auldheid but your link gave me more food for thought. I was led to believe that Dave King sneeked under the door of ‘fit & proper’ by the SFA by being a director of RIFC and not the affiliated member of the SFA TRFC. Now I see from EUFA Article 12 (from your link) ‘Definition of licence applicant & 3 year rule’ –
“a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member); or b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company).”
So the ‘contractual relationship with a registered member’ has meaning? The Club & The company?
Seems to me then that the SFA were once again squirming away from ruling on Dave King in terms of his fit & proper status. They could have ruled on him but chose to cowardice out of it.
test
easyJamboMarch 25, 2017 at 22:18 (Edit)
Yup TRFC/RIFC may be allowed to play in Europe in the coming season but less likely if past history of submissions to UEFA by RFC are remembered (and UEFA know what happened in 2011 when some of the same current Board members of TRFC/RIFC were Directors or administrators at RFC.) Thus, a bit of trust will be required of TRFC/RIFC and the SFA which makes the suggestion in
http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/ugly-history-repeat-scottish-football/
re transparency something other clubs should be looking at.
There are also questions regarding the process as set out in the STV article in which they say
UEFA begins to monitor under the “break-even requirement” at the point a licence is applied for but no club has ever been banned prior to competition for failing to meet the criteria
(and later)
The Scottish FA act as the initial licensor and is obligated to ensure any clubs it puts forward as potential European participants meet the financial fair play criteria on an ongoing basis.
It IS the SFA’s job to grant a licence after which monitoring becomes UEFA’s responsibility. Mr Regan was at pains to emphasise this when justifying the granting of the questionable UEFA licence in 2011 when he said on national radio that after the 31st March UEFA took over monitoring responsibilities. So how UEFA can monitor for breakeven before the licence is granted never mind applied for is unclear.
What Rangers (sic) will be asked to do is submit future financial information to prove they stand a chance of meeting the break-even calculation in the near future.
This begs the question then of who will ask Rangers (sic) to submit future financial forecasts? If Regan is correct it will only be UEFA who are interested from a break even monitoring aspect but with regard to the granting it is the SFA who have to satisfy themselves that the accounts submitted meet the standards set out in the UEFA Articles 47 or 48 referred to earlier. These suggest the SFA need audited accounts by the 31st March in order to grant a licence and after that, according to Regan, it is over to UEFA to monitor.
If the SFA do grant the license, then unless UEFA have reason to intervene, TRFC would be able to play in the 2017/18 competition. However in this regard what happened to Greek club Giannina FC in 2013 is interesting:
http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award20323320FINAL20_2013.12.05_20internet.pdf
The Greek FA granted Giannina a licence, but had some doubts about tax overdue representations by Giannina FC and made that point to UEFA when submitting the list of the Greek clubs granted a licence, which has to be with UEFA for all associations by the end of May each year.
UEFA were thus able in early June 2013, before the tournament got underway, to send in the CFCB team to investigate. They found not only that there was tax overdue under UEFA rules but also irregularities in the Giannina accounts where private agreements had not been reported. They deemed this a failing in “fair presentation” of accounts, a phrase which features in one of the Annexes mentioned earlier. It is not unreasonable to suggest any accounts submitted by TRFC/RIFC will need to be viewed in that light.
Now it is unlikely that there are any private agreements being used by TRFC/RIFC after the lesson learned from undisclosed side letters, but the point here is UEFA CAN debar a club in 2017 for season 2017/18 if circumstances merit it and do investigate thoroughly if a submission from a national association gives them cause to, which takes us back to the sporting integrity blog point about the SFA and transparency.
Lets assume though that the SFA act as the Greek FA did and grant a licence, but with questions attached, which leads to UEFA asking for a set of future financial forecasts that show a credible reduction in the use of loans and movement towards breakeven as a result of forecast annual income from participation in UEFA competition over say the next three years.
Did the agreement UEFA met with Astana, an example cited by STV, depend on UEFA income to reduce their debt over three years? Would that not create a dilemma for UEFA and provide an argument for the club who are next in line if a license is granted by a national association and not revoked by UEFA due to an agreement, if that next in line club can demonstrate that its business case is not DEPENDENT on UEFA income to balance its books currently or in the foreseeable future and is already being run sustainably?
Being dependent on UEFA income is what killed RFC and poisoned the Scottish football well, it would be foolish and unfair to allow a repeat and the UEFA rules are titled Financial FAIR Play.
Apart from that I think there are holes in the STV guys’ presentation of the process, which they may have ran past the SFA before publishing in order not to mislead readers.
However, when STV get it wrong about publishing what UEFA told the SFA, Celtic and Res12 lawyers in June last year about how UEFA see TRFC as a new club/company AND never attempted to verify with SFA what they were told when the omission was pointed out to them , it takes more than a pinch of salt to believe STV’s views are not an attempt to reassure the supporters of TRFC that they will be eligible play in Europe under the rules.
However in their presentation are STV misleading supporters of TRFC/RIFC as well as other clubs, into believing there is no question of TRFC/RIFC’s eligibility to play in Europe if they reach a qualifying position under their current financial policy that is loan dependent to pay players to qualify?
What is needed here is a clear logical explanation from SFA themselves of the process in order to satisfy supporters of clubs competing with TRFC/RIFC for a UEFA place that the SFA are being even handed.
Over to Mr Regan.
jimboMarch 25, 2017 at 22:59 (Edit)
Art 12 says
1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
for a football team participating in national and international competitions which
either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football
company).
In Europe you have clubs who are members of their national associations who do not have a contractual relationship with any legal entity who are responsible for running the football team but who will apply for a UEFA Licence under a).
You also have clubs who do have a contractual relationship with a legal entity who are responsible under a contract for a football team. A legal entity holding such a contract UEFA call a football company and it could be termed a holding company (as it holds a contract).
Thus UEFA define both constructs in order to treat an application for a licence as a valid application from any club in Europe under either construct.
Thus TRFC/RIFC are the club/company under b) that Traverso referred to as new as they are not RFC under a).
In respect of your question I don’t know what form the contractual relationship between TRFC and RIFC takes, but if the SFA view TRFC as the club (on its own) under a) they are entitled not to treat DK as a Director of TRFC but the guy whose company (RIFC) TRFC have agreed under a contract is responsible for the football team.
What would clear matters is either sight of the contract or sight of any application for a UEFA licence from 2011 back.
If the applicant was RFC under a) there was no holding company pre 2012.
If the applicant was MIH under b) then there was a holding company.
The name on the paper work registered with the SFA before and after 2011 would also tell us which of the two forms a) or b) existed before and after. The MCCulloch contract for example: was he contracted to the same legal entity throughout his time at Ibrox?
Its all a semantical battle in the OC/NC debate. Emotionally TRFC/RIFC are RFC to their support. Legally and under UEFA authority they are not and no amount of semantics will change that but, again lack of clarity from SFA and SPFL, does not help establish the position under football law as dictated by UEFA and whether under their authority the trophy count was uninterrupted although the SFA membership of the club winning them according to Art 12 was.
I suspect that is the nub of the issue that and wanting it both ways.
The starting position using LNS logic should be any trophies won using unlawful ebts should be removed. That may be a couple of years or ten/eleven depending on the SC decision.
1. If HMRC win then it covers all years of ebt use 2000 to 2011.
2. If BDO win then it refers to trophies won from 2000 to season 2002/03.
Neither would have any impact on the emotional same club argument but I reckon 1 would have a much greater impact than 2 on the trophy count and in many ways address the nub of the OC/NC issue which amounts to bragging rights based on fair play.
AULDHEIDMARCH 26, 2017 at 02:55 The Greek FA granted Giannina a licence, but had some doubts about tax overdue representations by Giannina FC and made that point to UEFA when submitting the list of the Greek clubs granted a licence, which has to be with UEFA for all associations by the end of May each year.
—————
which takes us back to the sporting integrity blog point about the SFA and transparency.Lets assume though that the SFA act as the Greek FA did and grant a licence, but with questions attached,
———————–
Lets assume though that the SFA Don’t act (They can’t be trusted)as the Greek FA did.
What then?
AULDHEIDMARCH 26, 2017 at 02:55
===============================
Great post Auldheid, but let’s be honest. The SFA will simply ask Rangers if their finances are in order, Rangers will say yes, then the SFA will grant the licence. The cynic in me says the SFA are simply applying the cart before the horse principle in attempting to boost Rangers finances with European football, rather than ensuring they are compliant before they enter. However, it will be interesting to see if the properly managed club who misses out will say anything.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but from reading the various comments and dissection of the UEFA licencing requirements, is it correct that TRFC, (not RIFC) will need to provide fully audited accounts to the SFA by 31st March?
If so, what period do these accounts cover?
Perhaps someone can help me with a question regarding Dave King making an offer to buy shares from other shareholder at 20p each.
Will he have to make the offer to
1. Blue Pitch Holdings (4,000,000),2. Putney Holdings Limited (700,000),3. ATP Investments Limited (2,600,000); and4. Norne Anstalt (1,200,000)
The reason I ask about these shareholders is that those are the ones whose rights in relation to the shares have been suspended so
Given that there are 8.5m shares involved that comes to just over £2m, and it’s difficult to think why those people would want to keep the shares.
Homunculus
I’ve asked David Low to do an update given this week’s developments to try to cut through the background noise and get a clearer picture. I will ask him about this.
HomunculusMarch 26, 2017 at 14:53
Perhaps someone can help me with a question regarding Dave King making an offer to buy shares from other shareholder at 20p each.
Will he have to make the offer to
1. Blue Pitch Holdings (4,000,000),2. Putney Holdings Limited (700,000),3. ATP Investments Limited (2,600,000); and4. Norne Anstalt (1,200,000)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Those mysterious offshore entities have fascinated me from day one. Who is behind them? Why did they buy into Charles Green’s project? Why not just tell RIFC who the beneficial owner is, and retain their voting rights?
I think Blue Pitch and Norne were among the pre-IPO investors, and got their shares for a penny, in return for fronting Green’s £5m purchase of the basket of assets.
So maybe 20p is a good return, but then why not exit sooner? 50p was certainly achievable before King started with all the boycott stuff.
As always with RIFC, there’s more to this than meets the eye.
BIG PINK
MARCH 26, 2017 at 18:54
===================================
Thanks very much I would appreciate that.
I really don’t see what would be in it for them not to accept the offer.
Their shares are currently worthless anyway.
NEEPHEID
MARCH 26, 2017 at 19:15
==============================
See attached, from the IPO Prospectus.
neepheid March 26, 2017 at 19:15
I think Blue Pitch and Norne were among the pre-IPO investors, and got their shares for a penny, in return for fronting Green’s £5m purchase of the basket of assets.
==========================
The four parties (BPH, Margarita, Norne and Putney) all paid 99p a share for half their holdings and were offered the same number of shares at 1p, making an average price of 50p.
e.g. BPH bought 2,000,000 at 99p and 2,000,000 at 1p for a total investment of £2M.
The total cash invested by the four was £4.25M, i.e. the bulk of the funds that financed the asset purchase.
They would be accepting a substantial loss if they sold out now, but realistically their shares are worth less than the 20p that would be on offer.
There were suggestions that the initial investors were rewarded in other ways (onerous contracts / commissions etc.), but no proof has ever been offered.
I don’t understand all of this financial stuff but it does seem to be a mess
Jean
jean7brodieMarch 26, 2017 at 21:38
Pretty accurate assessment, I’d say, Jean.
A great performance and result by Scotland against a big strong physical team.
However as a watcher of Scotland for over 50 years I’m reminded of what Robin Williams said (it was on gold but it could have been Scottish national football )
“Right near the end I’ll put a little flat piece with a little flag to give you hope. ” R Williams
http://www.businessinsider.com/robin-williams-on-golf-2014-8?IR=T
HomunculusMarch 26, 2017 at 14:53
‘…Will he have to make the offer to
1. Blue Pitch Holdings (4,000,000),2. Putney Holdings Limited (700,000),3. ATP Investments Limited (2,600,000); and4. Norne Anstalt (1,200,000)…..’
__________
I’ve been looking to see whether the Companies Act 2006 says anything about the exclusion of section 793 non-compliers from the run of shareholders to whom a ‘concert party chancer’ has been ordered to offer all shares not already owned by him and the rest of the ‘concert party’.
I haven’t seen anything so far, in the turgid mass legal verbiage.On the face ot it, though, the penalties on the 793 lot include not being allowed to transfer their shares while the order applies. It doesn’t say that the company itself cannot buy those shares, or that the 793 people cannot seel them back to the company ( which wouldn’t really be a transfer of shares to another shareholder?
I think King would have to include them in the offer.
But is ther e an order under 793 in force?
And if so, was there ever any attempt to prosecute the non-compliers for a criminal offence, under sec 795 of the companies act 2006? And if there was a prosecution, did they manage to wriggle out of it?
“795 Notice requiring information: offences(1) A person who—(a) fails to comply with a notice under section 793 (notice requiringinformation about interests in company’s shares), or(b) in purported compliance with such a notice—(i) makes a statement that he knows to be false in a materialparticular, or(ii) recklessly makes a statement that is false in a materialparticular,commits an offence.(2) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1)(a) if he proves thatthe requirement to give information was frivolous or vexatious
easyJamboMarch 26, 2017 at 21:22
neepheid March 26, 2017 at 19:15 I think Blue Pitch and Norne were among the pre-IPO investors, and got their shares for a penny, in return for fronting Green’s £5m purchase of the basket of assets. ========================== The four parties (BPH, Margarita, Norne and Putney) all paid 99p a share for half their holdings and were offered the same number of shares at 1p, making an average price of 50p. e.g. BPH bought 2,000,000 at 99p and 2,000,000 at 1p for a total investment of £2M.
The total cash invested by the four was £4.25M, i.e. the bulk of the funds that financed the asset purchase.
They would be accepting a substantial loss if they sold out now, but realistically their shares are worth less than the 20p that would be on offer.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks EJ, your memory is better than mine. It all seems so long ago now.
At an average 50p, they got a good discount on the IPO price of 70p, but they (Blue Pitch as an example) are currently looking at a loss of 30p per share if they sell at 20p. On 2 million shares that’s £600k down the pan.That’s a pretty significant hit.
There must surely have been something profitable keeping them in for over 4 years, and the fact that they refuse to disclose their ultimate ownership in the face of a formal request makes it all look very fishy indeed.
In my opinion King is going down and will not care whom he takes with him.
Neepheid says,
“At an average 50p, they got a good discount on the IPO price of 70p, but they (Blue Pitch as an example) are currently looking at a loss of 30p per share if they sell at 20p. On 2 million shares that’s £600k down the pan.That’s a pretty significant hit.”
Spot on the money as usual. If they do have to take a loss it will be exactly quantified, just as for Ashley and the Easdale brothers.
It should not be forgotten in all of the furore around the TAB decision that there is still lurking in the background the prospect of action being taken against King and others for deliberately attacking the share price and driving it down.
This is a criminal offence and it does not take too much of a stretch of the imagination to state that if they can prove they were acting in concert and King used illegally obtained material to drive the price down at the same time, then some sort of action will follow.
In short if people can quantify their losses and a case is subsequently proved against King then he stands to be pursued for the difference.
Hoopy 7March 27, 2017 at 11:43
In my opinion King is going down and will not care whom he takes with him.
+++++++++++++++++
I don’t know about going down, but all the signs are that he’s getting out. Here’s a wee snippet from Level5’s latest press release- sorry, “Union” Jack’s latest laughable puff piece- how could I get mixed up like that?
On the share price manipulation point, I seem to recall that after the promised Nomad failed to materialise, some angry shareholders were said to be of a mind to report matters to the police, and specifically the perceived share price manipulation.
However that’s two years ago, and I would have expected some action by now.
In light of current speculations re TOP I thought this blog article may be of some interest.
https://daviesleftpeg.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/shares-what-shares-i-dont-own-any-shares/
Back page of The Murdoch Times today is an article by Michael Grant headed “Strachan hails saviour Martin”.
This quote caught my eye and raised my hackles.
It was probably the best they have played under me…..
… Everybody who was involved will go away feeling good
AND ..In a wry dig at the small crowd, Strachan said: “We are available for people to come and support us next time”.
So thanks WGS.
Thanks from all the suffering fans in Scotland for the snidey wee kick.
You were paid for being there last night, well paid.
Think about it, – your boss Reagan and his flunkies somehow concocted a 7.45 pm Sunday night match at Hampden in Glasgow on Mother’s Day and instead of having a wry dig at Reagan after the wonderful Celtic-inspired show (and maybe also apologising for your teams previous inept performances) you have a sneaky wee pop at the fans for not digging deep enough financially to be there.
(You know Gordon as it is a well known fact that in recent times the Scottish travelling fans as a community are not as Glasgow based and biased as the SFA so Sunday night football is not a fan led decision).
And have a wee think too about Reagan and his SFA who have also sold the rights to the Scottish matches to The Sky organisation for paid for viewing unlike the FA whose live matches are shown for all on ITV and beamed in Scotland too.
Without the fans Gordon football is nothing but you’d never know that in anything involving the SFA.
neepheidMarch 27, 2017 at 12:21
‘…I don’t know about going down, but all the signs are that he’s getting out…’
_______________
He cannot, of course, get out of his personal obligation to offer to pay 20p per share to any ( maybe not the ‘sec 793 order’ mystery shareholders?) shareholders .
How he must be spitting blood at the very idea of having to spend his own money, even if a mere handful of shareholders were to take up the offer.
And how he must really be in dread of the possibility that the big, possibly dodgy, shareholders might have had enough of the nonsense that is RIFC/TRFC, realise that there is not likely to be Champions league money coming their way soon, and decide to find another laundry investment that gives them a decently clean shirt, and conclude that taking up the 20p per share offer will be better for them than being associated with toxic chairman of the holding company of a four-and- a- bit -year-old and not terribly promising Scottish football club!
But the travails of a Dave King or any other schmuck of a football club director are only incidental to the question of how it came about that our Football Governance people were so much party to so much that was the cause of the death of the ‘real’ Rangers FC and the creation of the myth that TRFC is that same club.
No one really cares a XXXX ( I’ve been to that brewery) about ars..oles like King.
No, but most of care about the fact that our Football Governance has been corrupted, almost irredeemably, by the poison of SDM’s cheating, and the more lethal poison of the acceptance, condonation, and furtherance of that cheating by our Football Authorities.
There is simply no getting away from that fact.
It is not ‘my opinion’.
It is a matter of fact.
Various sites are suggesting that neither of the TRFC Directors – Stewart Robertson and Paul Murray – were involved in producing the Interims.
Andrew Dickson is currently the TRFC Director: Finance & Administration.
If he had no involvement either, then you would think he would have no choice but to do walking away ?
It would be both a professional slap in the face from King, and would raise a red flag that there are weak, internal controls and leadership within the Finance function, [I know 😉 ]
Must be getting ever more uncomfortable working for the Ibrox club / company these days.
Looks like Chris Jack is beating Keef in their race to the gutter wrt absolutely p!sh journalism – and obediently copying / pasting without even reading the content given by Level42.
The latest effort accredited to Jack is rather nauseously impressive in its fawning of King, and ends with;
[my highlighting added]
“…
King doesn’t need to be in Glasgow to run Rangers and he doesn’t need to be chairman to invest in Rangers. Right now, his time and effort are just as important as his money.
The financial burden at Ibrox continues to fall on King and the likes of Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor.
They are investors that King can trust, fans that Rangers can rely on.
All of their contributions are crucial. The ongoing involvement from King is the most important of all, though, and his commitment to the cause was perhaps the most heartening message of the lot for supporters.”
=======================
NORMANBATESMUMFCMARCH 26, 2017 at 11:00 29 Votes
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but from reading the various comments and dissection of the UEFA licencing requirements, is it correct that TRFC, (not RIFC) will need to provide fully audited accounts to the SFA by 31st March?If so, what period do these accounts cover?
———————————-
Can i expand on that question if i may?
1.Do they even have anyone who could audit the accounts?
2.If not how long would it take to get someone who could audit the accounts?
3 how long does it take to audit un audited accounts?
4. Am i way off the mark here?
I see three of the directors of The Rangers Football Club Lt have resigned from the board.
Those being
Graeme Thomas Park
Paul Murray
John Gilligan
This leaved a board consisting of
Stewart Martin Robertson
Andrew James Dickson
James Blair remains as Co Sec.
There have been no changes to the board of the PLC reported.
HOMUNCULUSMARCH 27, 2017 at 20:28
So who is left as the chairman of The Rangers Football Club Lt ?
CLUSTER ONE
MARCH 27, 2017 at 20:35
———————————————
I believe Stewart Robertson is the Managing Director, Andrew Dickson is listed as Head Of Football Administration.
I don’t think they actually have a Chairman.
HOMUNCULUSMARCH 27, 2017 at 20:50
I don’t think they actually have a Chairman.
I don’t think they actually will have a Chairman. of the company soon either
To late to edit
Ps, is a club in the SPFL allowed to have a board consisting of just three members and no chairman. i don’t know the rules on such matters,can these three have any authority on a clubs many affairs?
https://t.co/t6wwbUwjBm
From Companies House -Park, Murray and Gilligan resign as directors of TRFC.
Link to the registration filings for the resignation https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/filing-history apparently moving to the RIFC board.
A company doesn’t need to have a chairman – just someone to chair board meetings. The directors can take it in turn to do so.
In respect of DCK’s position, in 2012 the SFA changed its definition of club (with a small c) to include its owner and operator.
In the context of TRFC, this would make RIFC the owner and operator. Accordingly, I think it is correct to consider DCK as the chairman of the current Rangers FC
Cluster OneMarch 27, 2017 at 18:54 (Edit) i 6 Votes
NORMANBATESMUMFCMARCH 26, 2017 at 11:00 29 Votes Please correct me if I’m wrong, but from reading the various comments and dissection of the UEFA licencing requirements, is it correct that TRFC, (not RIFC) will need to provide fully audited accounts to the SFA by 31st March?If so, what period do these accounts cover? ———————————-Can i expand on that question if i may? 1.Do they even have anyone who could audit the accounts? 2.If not how long would it take to get someone who could audit the accounts? 3 how long does it take to audit un audited accounts?
4. Am i way off the mark here?
=================
No.
three of the directors of The Rangers Football Club Lt have resigned from the board.
And three directors of club 1872 resigned last week.
Is this normal practice for a club when we are told everything is fine?
Podcast with David Low’s prescient interview now up…
Restructuring is the reason. Its all clear here (I think)
https://rangers.co.uk/news/club/company-statement-3/
It would actually be clearer if we knew if they were a club under (a) of Art12 FFP or b) and if (b) what the contractual relationship was between a) and b).
A relationship that we do not know existed before 2012 but suspect it didn’t unless MIH had a contractual relationship no one knows about.
Homunculus March 27, 2017 at 20:28
=================
Explanation here
https://rangers.co.uk/news/club/company-statement-3/