Comment on Two wrongs and a right by Barcabhoy.
The court report from James Doleman states that Green & Ahmad [are alleged to have] raised £21 million from the IPO by use of fraud. I haven’t seen that reported elsewhere , however it seems to me that this will become a potentially fatal consequence for RIFC if there are criminal charges relating to the IPO , and the charges result in guilty verdicts.
The Beneficiary of this was RIFC . Regardless of how the received IPO funds were spent by the RIFC board , the funds were paid to Rangers by the investors. Those investors in the main lost significantly . If the court decides that the investors were fraudulently induced , then I would have thought RIFC would be where they would look for recompense. Cenkos may have some responsibility , however Rangers were the ones who received £21 million of investors monies.
Mike Ashley was one of these investors. Given his recent litigiousness against King, it would be a surprise if he kept his powder dry if fraud is proved
Two wrongs and a right
Let me be clear. I dont think King is fit and proper under any set of circumstances, i’m just passing on what I was told will be the SFA defence.
Nobody needs to try and convince me King is unfit. I’ve been saying that for years
Two wrongs and a right
Re the King fit and proper judicial review .
I was told by a Director of the SFA ( not PL) that the SFA were extremely diligent in gathering information from the authorities in SA & UK. He claims they asked every appropriate question . No reason to doubt him , he’s not a King or RFC lover.
I suspect lack of a smoking gun , possibly due to “not able to comment ” , will be the SFA defence. Remember they have to have proof King is not fit and proper . King did not have to provide evidence he was . Comments from the trial judge aside , it would be challenging to get a tax authority or a Police authority to provide confidential information to a self elected sports body.
Two wrongs and a right
You can have a share issue without being listed on a stock exchange. Hibs went down this road last year, which resulted in the fans now owning just under 20%.
The inhibitor to Rangers issuing shares to new / outside investors is that they were refused permission to do so by existing shareholders. Issuing shares to exisiting shareholders, as long as all shareholders are offered the opportunity to buy was approved. The board have chosen not to exercise that option . King has stated it will have to wait until they are listed again, but as with almost everything he says its incorrect.
There may be many prudent reasons for not issuing these shares just now, but given equity is lost in an insolvency as opposed to loans which are not necessarily, then you would have to question how confident the board were that RIFC will survive certain verdicts in upcoming criminal trials
On Grounds for Judicial Review
Celtic aren’t employing a QC . The fans are.
Celtic have direct access , as a member of both the SFA and the SPFL. They have already succeeded in a committment from the SPFL to a wide ranging enquiry . We await the terms of reference of that enquiry. However it will not include the potential to set aside the LNS enquiry, according to Rod McKenzie
Hence the need for the fans to ask a court to do so.The basis is LNS was not provided with relevent evidence of use of unlawful or irregular tax schemes . LNS , by his own words , said he proceeded on the basis that these schemes were lawful. He also stated that the SPL had rules to prevent breaches of Sporting Integrity and he found Rangers guilty of that , but not in a manner that provided Sporting Advantage.
Based on what was hidden from LNS plus what has been ruled on by the Supreme Court , that conclusion by LNS looks fundamentally flawed
The SFA have failed completely in their role as protector of the game. I have no doubt whatsever that Celtic want fundamental change there. However at this stage the fans don’t have a specific decision that the SFA have made , in regards to the Sporting Advantage , that was the subject of an independent panel, and therefore open to a JR request
I agree that the non decisions described above by BRTH should be the subject and included in an SFA commisioned fully independent review . However as yet they have decided a 3 monkeys approach is all we are getting . Lets see if Celtic get enough support from other clubs on this one
Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
1 The SPFL has guaranteed TV revenue for 3 years
2 Many clubs have record season book sales
3 Debt has been removed in most clubs
Why have SPFL clubs been silent so far , with the exception of Celtic , on the implications of the Supreme Court verdict
The argument is made that many are working hard just to make ends meet.
Fair enough , but when was that ever not the case in Scottish football.
Are we to believe that there will never be an environment where clubs have an appetite to get Four-square behind the notion of Sporting Integrity ?
That can’t possibly be the case , otherwise why bother having a rule book .
Some clubs though are in relative robust financial health, their supporters have dug deep to help finance recent achievements.
Don’t they deserve the respect , from club directors , of ensuring their club is treated exactly the same way as every club. Not every club bar 1
I’m looking particularly at Hearts , Aberdeen, Hibernian and St Johnstone. You have no excuses for silence , certainly not personal ambition for positions at the SFA or SPFL.
Do you really want your legacies to read :
I was scared to do the right thing in case we jeopardised some ticket revenue.
So I turned a blind eye to the actions of the authorities and 13 years of rule breaches by a member club “
That’s what you want to tell your grandchildren ?
If Clubs can’t speak out when they have guaranteed revenue, record fan support , are debt free and succesful , when CAN they be trusted to put Integrity at the top of their list of priorities…….or even on it .
Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
LNS Though did comment on the Tax Case. He explicitly stated that as far as his enquiry was concerned the EBT’s were lawful and as such were not a breach of league rules
That is an important point. If the use of EBT’s in relation to their legality/lawfulness/regularity was a matter of no consequence , then LNS had no need to address them. The fact that he found it necessary to comment on their legality is telling.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is a breach of rules to use tax schemes which are irregular , unlawful , illegal or any of those categories
Yet there has not been a single enquiry into these tax schemes. Is this because guilt had already been admitted by Rangers ? Is it because it would be impossible to come to any other conclusion that sporting advantage was gained ?
Time to Make Things Happen
How do you reconcile your statement that Res 12 was a board controlled project with the fact it’s only in the public domain because of the efforts of the requisitioners ?
THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight
Here’s the challenge when it comes to sanctioning clubs for fan behaviour.
1 Minor Incidents can be hugely exagerrated through social media and press coverage.
Take the recent statement by Club 1872 blaming celebrating Celtic fans for Celtic players being attacked, racially abused and having dangerous objects thrown at them. Now even allowing for the fact that the statement was made by the Moron’s moron Craig Houston, it received disproportionate coverage in the msm, virtually none of it ridiculing the shameful nature of the statement.
In the same statement Houston claimed damage to Ibrox stadium in a pathetic attempt to equate half a dozen broken seats with the £80k of wanton vandalism deliberatley carried out by Rangers supporters at Celtic Park
Now anyone with a more than a single brain cell can see through Houston’s lies and bitterness, however his claims were published in the MSM and as far as i’m aware have not been ridiculed by journalists in the papers that published them. They therefore become unchallenged outside of social media, and down the line gain a currency of “fact” amongst those who don’t know better
2 Serious incidents can be downplayed by press coverage
Graham Spiers aside not many in the MSM are prepared to report on the large scale singing and chanting which breaks the law in this country. As another example take the Scottish Cup Final of last season. If you only got your news from the MSM , then you would believe all 11 Rangers players were attacked on the pitch . We know that’s a lie, and at most it appears a single player was the victim of a single attempted assault.
However the media have largely ignored the actions of a large number of Rangers fans who went onto the pitch intent on committing violence. Those who didn’t ignore it, enthusiastically bought in to Jim Traynor’s fabrication of a valiant band who were only intent in defending their players.
There may be other incidents involving fans of other clubs which could be used to illustrate the points above. The issue though is we can’t allow the MSM to determine what is and isn’t a serious incident. Most journalists , i think, wouldn’t deliberately mislead, but there are clearly enough who would based on their track record