Two wrongs and a right

ByBig Pink

Two wrongs and a right

The John James blog has of late thrown up many hooks to hang our theories on and provided much food for thought on the Rangers issue.

His casual invective against individuals, particularly Dave King, and often members of the Bench is not particularly SFM-like in its approach, but despite the industrial nature of much of the discourse, the value of his work cannot be denied.

On the subject of revisiting LNS, I find myself in agreement with his conclusions. His argument about Celtic’s attitude to Resolution 12 is to my mind compelling insofar as it serves as a barometer for Celtic’s disposition towards rocking the SPL/SFA boat. Like him, I cannot see any real evidence, (despite the recent statement by the club) that they are disposed to move in the direction of a revisited LNS (although it should be noted that besides Celtic there are another 40 clubs who may have an opinion on this).

His conclusions though should not be confused with his opinion on the rights and wrongs of LNS. Like most of us, he appears to be of the opinion that LNS was seriously flawed on multiple counts.

I saw Bill McMurdo’s remarks too in reference to the same topic. He alleges that the whole SFA house of cards would come down if information he has at his fingertips, information that off-book payments in Scottish football was much more widespread that the RFC EBTs, was made public.

UnderTableIf what he says is true, and he has evidence, he should be expanding on the innuendo.

If he chooses not to, then he is as complicit as those he accuses.

In any event, to say that no action should be taken because others have done it is not the same as saying that no action WILL be taken.

If he means the former, then he is wrong. By the logic of that argument it follows that burglars for example should not be prosecuted because other people burgle houses but didn’t get caught.

I suspect he knows himself that by any objective standard, this view is in error, because when he is called out on it, he reverts to ad hominem attacks on those who called him on it. No defence, just withering, dismissive sarcasm – in the manner of former pundit Jim Traynor when he refers to those who speak of sporting integrity.

If he means the latter, then he should do what he can do prevent it and make his information public. I believe he knows that the £3 note fraternity runs through Scottish football like lettering on a stick of seaside rock, but I suspect he doesn’t actually have evidence.

If there is evidence, then McMurdo is in a unique position to get it out in the open and make life difficult for those he alleges are corrupt.

Then we should go back in time as far as possible to investigate those who participated in “black money” schemes, whether they are EBTs, other forms of tax dodge, or just money in a brown paper bag.

I do not believe that any of us participating in the Scottish Football Monitor would fear exposure of any of our clubs. I think we all know that this is far more important than club loyalties.

If McMurdo’s information is correct, then we also have the opportunity to show that the clamour for revisiting LNS is not an anti-Rangers with-hunt. Instead of reconvening LNS, let’s have Bill’s info, and constitute a wider enquiry. If the info was made public, and it will now be difficult for him to put his genie back into the bottle, could the SFA and the clubs resist the pressure for such an enquiry?

handsMaybe McMurdo’s intervention/revelation may yet be seen as a seminal moment in the campaign to rid ourselves of corruption and incompetence in football.

Our position has always been clear. Corruption is counter to sporting integrity. Therefore it must be rooted out.

John James and Merlin are probably correct in that the clubs will seek to thwart any move for a new enquiry; and there could easily have been a deal done with King last week.

However there was also a deal done with Charles Green about the new club being parachuted into the SPL. How did that one turn out?

About the author

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

1,703 Comments so far

yourhavingalaughPosted on7:40 pm - Jan 12, 2016

Why would their counsel tell porkies,first the loan,now the wi fi,what kind of counsel do they employ,surely doesn’t advertise his company when he tells porkies that kids would ask questions of,you just get the feeling this all going south.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:12 pm - Jan 12, 2016

During the time this £300,000 has been owed, there must have been many occasions when it would have been impossible for TRFC to pay it, they were running so close to the wind. So, in a fashion that is as old as credit itself, RIFC/TRFC have claimed the service was substandard and have refused to pay the outstanding bill, rather than admit they couldn’t. Assuming that some outlay had been made by the club to provide the much heralded, at the time, wifi service, one would have expected the club to have pursued the provider if there genuinely had been anything substandard with the wifi, as the only way to recoup any outlay was with a working service. It has to also be assumed that the claim that Virgin cut off the internet access is genuine, so there must have been some usage of the system etc, etc. Probably the power of a company the size of Virgin led to the payment of any sums outstanding, though perhaps not.

Before issuing an interim interdict the judge must have been satisfied that there was some merit to the claim, while little or no merit to the club’s excuse for non-payment, as well as reasonable grounds to think there might not be sufficient funds to meet the debt by the time the case has been settled. I would imagine the current judge will have to consider if there is a likelihood that RIFC/TRFC will have the funds available at a future date, and if he believes they will/might, decide whether or not that attaching the funds could make the company insolvent, when to not attach the funds might allow the company to survive and, perhaps, prosper. I seem to remember that the Ahmad case had a similar scenario to be considered. He (the judge) might also have to take into account the prospects of the claimant, should that company lose a substantial (for them) outstanding payment.

All in all, not a happy situation for any company, or football club, to be in, and as has been suggested previously (here or elsewhere?), perhaps the first of a number of onerous contracts, reneged on by Kingco, to come to court!

And just why, with all this heading towards the club, would it be in the interest of the club to repay a loan that they had previously deemed low priority? Other than the recovery of the security, I can’t imagine what the hurry was. When you think about it, they’ve had to persuade SD to accept repayment, while facing substantial bills that they might very well have no choice but to pay, while at the same time having to scrape together the money to survive, even without outlays on new players.

There’s either a substantial amount of money heading to Ibrox we know nothing about, or that much expected (in some quarters) insolvency event is on the horizon.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on8:31 pm - Jan 12, 2016

First off humble pie time. The Emma Peel frae Clydebank was right all along141414 Sorry young lady.
Secondly Mke’s done the right thing got his £5mil back in face of a very uncertain future for his securities. Someone else’s name will be inserted where his was. No doubt our HK gents using OPM in a high risk gamble with onerous interest rates attached.
However if he still holds the IP? he holds the pot of gold. Anyone aware if this also reverts?
I await with interest an Easdale move along the lines of tomorrow’s Mash  hearing viz a viz shareholder protection and maybe further a move to  recompense for false suppression of his shares.
Time to create an Outlook court date calendar methinks.

View Comment

bailemeanachPosted on8:37 pm - Jan 12, 2016

Re the wifi, seen a few old retweets today from the period following the wifi launch, asking fans in different parts of the ground to give feedback about connectivity and performance via a dedicated wifi email address. Now if the club are now claiming that the service was never installed to the required spec, then I would have thought that this would be reflected in the customer feedback gathered. Likewise it could be confirmed that wifi experience on match day met expectations. I think there would be a DPA requirement to retain customer correspondence for 10 years (I may stand corrected)
The tweets I’ve seen, and I accept its a small sample, anecdotally report no issues with the wifi

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:41 pm - Jan 12, 2016

John Clark 12th January 2016 at 7:34 pm #
easyJambo, I have PMd you a minute ago.
Just got it and reply sent.

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on8:43 pm - Jan 12, 2016

In Sept 2011 Martin Bain persuaded a Judge to ring fence £480k in the RFC Bank account because there was a real threat of insolvency.

HMRC accumulated an RFC debt of £11.8m by Feb comprising  PAYE and NI of £9m and a further £2.8m carried forward from the previous regime.
It is unknown how much of this debt was owed by Sept 2011. However it must have been substantial. Nevertheless HMRC took no action until Feb 2012. They applied for a winding up order and then permitted RFC to appoint as Administrators, the same people who had been advising both the buyer and the seller of RFC.
Roll the clock on to Jan 2016
We have a second version of RFC which calls itself TRFC. This company was formed by changing the name of a newco Sevco Scotland registered in May 2012
TRFC has similar problems to RFC in living within its means.
So much so that 
One of its suppliers has now persuaded a Judge to ring fence £300k in the RFC Bank account because there is a real threat of insolvency.This may only be temporary We await a Jan15 decision by the Sheriff on whether the ring fencing will be continued.
Meanwhile another issue is relevant
Is HMRC in a similar situation to the one it found itself in Sept 2011?
Or put another way
Are TRFC in arrears on their HMRC account?
Because if they are
HMRC have learnt nothing from their previous experience and the taxpayer may be on the verge of paying for their poor judgement

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:51 pm - Jan 12, 2016

Martin Williams‏@MWilliamsHT 2h2 hours ago #Rangers considering counter-claim for reimbursement of £600k paid in WiFi deal …


Strangely, after who knows how long, TRFC have decided it’s time to consider claiming for reimbursement in a wifi deal, struck some years ago. Surely, if you pay for a service, and consider it substandard, you demand it be put right, or get a refund, as soon as the problem appears, or at the latest, the instant you receive the invoice/demand for payment!

This Herald article wouldn’t be spin at the Level of 5, would it?

Have TRFC only just discovered that there’s something wrong with their wifi system? Or could it just be the case that they are looking for something, some hope, for their supporters to cling onto? Meanwhile, regardless of the outcome, the club continues to rack up legal fees! To what level can squirrels climb?

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on9:11 pm - Jan 12, 2016

ianagain 12th January 2016 at 8:31 pm #…..Secondly Mke’s done the right thing got his £5mil back in face of a very uncertain future for his securities. Someone else’s name will be inserted where his was. No doubt our HK gents using OPM in a high risk gamble with onerous interest rates attached.However if he still holds the IP? he holds the pot of gold. Anyone aware if this also reverts?
A very interesting point, ianagain.

Could SD/MA have held on to the IP whilst they await any penalty payments they feel are due? At the same time they demonstrate what good guys they are by releasing the other – worthless? – securities (which are doubtless needed to secure the new loans to enable £5m of petty cash to hop across to SD.)

Scottish Football needs a season ticket system for Court seating.

View Comment

blackjacquePosted on9:18 pm - Jan 12, 2016

I was at Ibrox for the rugby 7s at the commonwealth games. It was a full house. I remember being surprised at the time how well the wifi worked. 

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on9:23 pm - Jan 12, 2016

Allyjambo 12th January 2016 at 8:51 pm

To what level can squirrels climb?
Do squirrels bite ? ok I will

You knew that 🙂

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:24 pm - Jan 12, 2016

And this is the other valuable service which the Internet Bampots provide…

If you only relied on the SMSM for your news you would think that TRFC was being treated shabbily by a 
Shoddy WiFi supplier.
But if you listened to the Bampots and the ‘court reporters’ you would get a much more balanced view !

And if TRFC was hoping to raise some much needed cash from player sales in January…

Then a well informed, potential buyer would be fully aware of the Ibrox club’s financial woes.
And TRFC might be forced to take whatever lowball offers are made on the last day of the transfer window.

The internet should really be censored…for the good of Scottish football ! 😉

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:29 pm - Jan 12, 2016

woodstein 12th January 2016 at 9:23 pm # Allyjambo 12th January 2016 at 8:51 pm
To what level can squirrels climb? Do squirrels bite ? ok I will
Five? You knew that


View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:37 pm - Jan 12, 2016

Re the Wi FI

City of London (the square mile) provides free wi fi for 400k people but usable levels are or are about 50k connections at one time. It cost megabucks.
Given it was Jabba who got involved in the installation at Ibrox (and they payed peanuts) I look forward immensely to seeing him in court faced by a Huawei engineer letting us all know his detailed technical spec for the installation.
Err whits the password again?

Re Virgin Media.
You pay them monthly (business or not) by direct debit or not at all. Don’t pay you get cut off. There won’t be a large debt or unlikely a court case for non payment.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:41 pm - Jan 12, 2016

That SF loan, anyone know what’s happening with it? Do the SMSM know, or are they just not saying?

I do suspect, though, that it’s fallen through after the club/King denied requesting it, though the original reports suggested it was a done deal so long as the vote went in favour.

Let’s presume there was a request for the loan; why would the club/King then turn it down?

Could it be that knowing the £500,000 on offer will fall well short of requirements that the club/King realised that it would be better to hold off until some event of an insolvent nature took it’s course? Perhaps that to have it in their account just now might see most of it attached to the benefit of some wifi scoundrels?

Administration now, then begging bowl out to SF etc once the dust has settled?

Just one of my thoughts 14 makes three this year already09

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on9:51 pm - Jan 12, 2016

Ring-fenced or not, this £300K is undetermined at this stage as to whether it is a payable or not. Pending that decision, I would have thought it would be in Sevco’s interest to ring-fence it internally anyway, as a contingency should things not go in their favour come judgement day. 
    Instead, they have expended a considerable sum to gain access to these funds before such time as they may(or may not) be deemed payable. They want/need to spend it before then. 
   Every picture tells a story.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:04 pm - Jan 12, 2016

Another wee star to add to the accounts if so for a whole year £300k in dispute.
How many similar amounts will be clocked up under legal fees and costs in the next accounts?
JJs correct DCK doesn’t give a monkeys how much he clocks up using the body corporeal of RIFC.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on10:07 pm - Jan 12, 2016

re the loan,there are no doubt some serious cash flow issues which I am sure the double agent,Mr Blair,is well aware of,and being in a position to also know there is spare cash sloshing about in the RF coffers has tried to pull a fast one,fortunately for the RF members they got wind of his ill put together scheme and have asked questions about this ,the loan will still be on but with conditions which Blair,I imagine,was not wanting attached,see these double agents,you really need to keep your eyes and ears on them.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:08 pm - Jan 12, 2016

As you know Im a ‘Well fan, but even I am getting miffed about the “Celtic flares” crap, just been again on Shortbread radio.
Our wee gits did it a few times and got roundly abused but this is getting so obviously skewed now.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:09 pm - Jan 12, 2016

Absolutely Aj – another side story which leaves the Bampots scratching their heads.
You would think that RIFC/TRFC would say/do whatever to grab any new funds.
So why knockback the RF proposed loan? 
King and co have developed a conscience and taking the RF supporters’ money was a scam too far?
King and co have deliberately chosen to leave this cash until a more opportune time -to themselves.

Either way, I don’t think King would walk away from 500K of other peoples’ money.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:19 pm - Jan 12, 2016

Stevie BC

Or King and co have deliberately chosen to leave this cash until a more opportune time -to themselves
Yes that’s the plan I can see this happening amidst a flurry of court cases to “back up our leader”

View Comment

Jimmy BonesPosted on10:20 pm - Jan 12, 2016

Can someone tell me if Laudrup, our esteemed Cup draw man, was an EBT recipient ?

View Comment

MercDocPosted on10:24 pm - Jan 12, 2016

Re Wireless,
In all honesty, has anybody looked at the wireless company’s website, I’m sorry but if I was looking for a company to sell me wireless, this wouldn’t be it!
Something smells fishy, like ,’the Toilet doors to Aberdeen Fish Market’  01

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:35 pm - Jan 12, 2016

Jimmy Bones 12th January 2016 at 10:20 pm # Can someone tell me if Laudrup, our esteemed Cup draw man, was an EBT recipient ?

Apparently not

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:39 pm - Jan 12, 2016

MercDoc 12th January 2016 at 10:24 pm # Re Wireless, In all honesty, has anybody looked at the wireless company’s website, I’m sorry but if I was looking for a company to sell me wireless, this wouldn’t be it! Something smells fishy, like ,’the Toilet doors to Aberdeen Fish Market’

I did say the RIFC payd peanuts. However they seemed to have been an agent for Huawaei who do know what they are doing, I mean they infiltrated the Australian military (and were banned for it) so they must know their business, Uk Gov is happy to business with them by the way, Lovely chaps arm of Chinese Army etc.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:42 pm - Jan 12, 2016

D’oh! Good spot there MerDoc!
Looks like a cheapo, off the shelf website template.
Quotes an ‘0845’ phone number.
And no physical address quoted. (Well ‘Contact’ was displayed as blank on my tablet.)
And no company registration number quoted, (although not obligated).
They do quote a council as a customer – which may or may not be correct.
But yes…does look a bit ‘strange’.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on11:02 pm - Jan 12, 2016

There is another, generic style website at
No physical address quoted.
Company exists / registered – as per Duedil – but I can’t access any financials or directors details on my logon.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:12 pm - Jan 12, 2016

802 works details here, including free annual accounts

View Comment

MercDocPosted on11:17 pm - Jan 12, 2016

StevieBC 12th January 2016 at 10:42 pm #
Yes, I noticed the council. Wouldn’t surprise me!
I noticed the Wireless company might need the cash, could this be the regime, reneging on contracts that don’t suit and trying to settle at a lower price. They must have had a Service Level Agreement and the Judge must have agreed on the original argument and TRFC(RIFC) appealed. 
Or the Wireless company wasn’t up to scratch, even with their great equipment from our comrades’ the ‘People’s Republic of China’. Who knows?

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on11:54 pm - Jan 12, 2016

tevieBC 12th January 2016 at 11:02 pm #EditThere is another, generic style website at physical address quoted.Company exists / registered – as per Duedil – but I can’t access any financials or directors details on my logon.
802 works seem to be a small wi fi consultancy who front for overseas manufacturers. This kind of business will  be responsible for identifying functional parameters writing a technical spec for suppliers, taking quotes, recommending a preferred supplier signing off installation and commissioning work ensuring it meets functional parameters and handling after sales service
As professional Consultants they will have written a tight technical spec which most non technical customers will have signed off without too much scrutiny 
Their current contract is probably a fixed fee/month renegotiated after a fixed period of time and paid irrespective of whether there are problems to fix as long as those that do occur get fixed quickly and properly
Frankly, if its that sort of contract I can`t see TRFC getting out of not paying up especially as they seem to be separately responsible for the ISP contract with Virgin to provide the internet stream 
A major negative which could weigh heavily on the issue is the David and Goliath syndrome where a big co TRFC are screwing a tiny consultancy business

View Comment

MercDocPosted on12:11 am - Jan 13, 2016

goosygoosy 12th January 2016 at 11:54 pm #
Maybe they can prove that it didn’t work and cancelled Virgin, as they couldn’t see any benefit from something that didn’t work.
Its does seem odd, all these court cases culminating like a perfect storm. Not very professional of these, High Powered Individuals to let contract disputes get to this level, in the public eye!
Or maybe it is, I haven’t got that type of acumen!  10

View Comment

MercDocPosted on12:29 am - Jan 13, 2016

Off Tangent a bit
It’s probably already been highlighted but Rangers the club, company, seem a bit multiple personalities.
‘The Club will transfer 26% of the share capital in Rangers Retail Limited (“RRL”) to SD for the duration of the Facility (the “Transfer”), which will be transferred back, at no cost, upon repayment of all outstanding sums owed by Rangers and its subsidiaries to SD. There is no specified repayment period for the first tranche of the Facility.’
‘If the entire sum drawn down is repaid, the Facility will be deemed to be terminated, all security will be released, the 26% of RRL will revert to the Company and all rights of SD to nominate Directors to the Board of the Company will cease.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on1:07 am - Jan 13, 2016

Allyjambo 12th January 2016 at 8:51 pm #
AJ…with the cash issue at that club…if a service was not fit for purpose that they had paid £600k…who amongst us would expect Mr. King to sit on that for the best part of a year making no effort to retrieve it?
This has all the hallmarks of a Company who delays payment, because they simply have no cash or credit.
It screams…distressed Company…it screams…if you are owed money get it from them as quickly as possible…it screams…if you are asked to provide goods or services to this Company, then it is strictly C.O.D

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:09 am - Jan 13, 2016

Much of this speculation about bills and so surviving to the end of the season could be put to rest if The SFA and SPFL agreed that a club not meeting a level of Club Licensing appropriate to their place in the SPFL as determined by the division they occupy or are going to occupy, would in fact have their SFA membership suspended and with it the right to play until such times as they reached that appropriate level
if not suspended, set a number of specified conditions to be met within a time frame after which a review would take place to determine if appropriate level reached and licence granted. Indeed if certain conditions are not met then as long as there evidence of moving in the right direction is provided why not just deduct a set number of points for each of the conditions not realised?
This would give the club an incentive to get its finances in order and other clubs who are meeting the criteria an assurance they are not subject to Financial Unfair Play. (Hibee and Falkirk fans to note)
Rather than wait for an insolvency event to trigger a points deduction rule that is there to deter clubs living beyond their means to win titles or promotion, the time to do that scrutiny is in the annual licencing rounds in the spring before the new season. Bolt the door before the horse bolts.
As it stands under Appendix Three of the SPFL Procedures
Financial Disclosure Requirements
1. Clubs entitled for the time being eligible to participate in the Premiership and the Championship are required to comply with Criteria (a)(i) 8.4, 8.11 and 8.12 to the Gold or Silver Standard in Part 2 – National Club Licensing, Section 8 – Legal, Admin, Finance and Codes of Practice Criteria; and (ii) UEFA Ref. Arts. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and verification where applicable 52 in Part 3 – UEFA Club Licensing, Section 5 – The UEFA Club Licensing Criteria of the Scottish FA National Club Licensing Manual; and (b) Clubs entitled for the time being eligible to participate in any other Division and Candidate Clubs are required to comply with Criteria (i) 8.4, 8.11 and 8.12 to the Entry Level Standard in Part 2 – National Club Licensing, Section 8 – Legal, Admin, Finance and Codes of Practice Criteria for Entry Level Clubs in The Scottish Football Association National Club Licensing Manual; (all “the Criteria”), all as from time to time amended, varied or supplemented by the Scottish FA, as if the requirements of the Criteria applied to provision of the copies, documentation, and information set out in the Criteria required to be made out and satisfied to the Company on the same basis and to the same extent as the Criteria require to be made out and satisfied to the Scottish FA.

TRFC with an Entry Level Licence would not qualify to play in the Premier next season although Hearts were (and perhaps still are) in the same position.
I’m not suggesting TRFC should be treated any differently than Hearts, but I think the football supporting public should know on what basis Hearts were granted a licence and if any conditions were set or commitments given that the required Silver or Gold standard would be met.
The same would apply to TRFC. Its called transparency
The SFA Licencing Rules are at
Para 2.2  states the  powers of Licensing Committee  (no copy paste of para allowed so read at the link)
Para 2.3 states The Appellate Tribunal (2.3) power to grant, suspend, refuse to grant or withdraw a club licence and determine at what level a licence is awarded.
Para 3.7 states what the LC can do in terms of determining which of the above applies including the ability to set conditions. This is where points deductions should kick in. It need not be ten but should reflect any advantage a club might have gained as a result of being slow to meet the conditions.
For info the relevant Finance Criteria quoted in the SPFL Appendix  8.11 and 8.12 are at pages 12 and 13 at the link  where it states Championship clubs have until 30 April 2016 to supply the relevant documents. This gives SFA time to set the level and the SPFL to explain exceptions to Appendix 3 and any conditions applied to a licence.
Its not as if the rules and power to influence clubs spending don’t exist. What clearly does not exist is the will to use them as they stand and the suggested incremental deduction of points is surely a better approach than waiting for that horse to bolt, providing a level of transparency to all supporters giving them confidence in the fairness of the games they pay to watch?
If, as I suspect, Licensing rules are not being observed because of the financial mess that some Scottish clubs  not just TRFC are still in, then the SFA and SPFL should be honest enough to come out and say that, but with a timetable by which time revised stricter but more sensible club licensing will be adopted.


View Comment

RayCharlezPosted on1:23 am - Jan 13, 2016

Bit confused here.
According to the Rangers statement given to the Evening Times no money has yet been arrested.
This appears to contradict other reports, unless I am confusing events.
A spokesman for Rangers said: “The hearing which is a preliminary step in the court proceedings is to determine whether the pursuer can seek to arrest funds due to Rangers by 3rd parties. No such funds have to Rangers’ knowledge actually been arrested. Friday’s decision will determine whether the pursuer will still have the right to arrest on the dependence of the legal proceedings or whether  whether this right should be removed.”
Nothing is ever simple with Sevco/Rangers

View Comment

YerevanPosted on1:52 am - Jan 13, 2016

For those discussing 802Works

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:16 am - Jan 13, 2016

From the Herald article;
The business has 3 employees and the owner gives this quote:
“…What was your biggest break?
When we won the contract to deliver our stadium wi-fi solution to Rangers Football Club…”

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:14 am - Jan 13, 2016

It’s taking an awful long time for the CoS to make a decision on BDO seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. On the face of it the decision by the CoS was an absolute slam-dunker in favour of HMRC with not a single dissenting voice. As a layman I know nothing of procedures but why is this taking so long?

The decision as it stands will be soul destroying for huge parts of society, including many in the media and probably the football authorities as well. For no appeal to be allowed would mean it is written in history forever that David Murray implemented a tax scheme to deny the public purse millions it was rightfully owed. In parallel the players it brought to Ibrox ensured massive success.  This appeal is their only hope. How strange the same people get so angry at other organisations that don’t pay the tax they should, while at the same time wanting the previous Rangers to do just that. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:19 am - Jan 13, 2016

upthehoops 13th January 2016 at 7:14 am
‘….For no appeal to be allowed would mean it is written in history forever that David Murray implemented a tax scheme to deny the public purse millions it was rightfully owed. In parallel the players it brought to Ibrox ensured massive success. This appeal is their only hope…’
But whether or not our Knight joins the ranks of the society rats who are known as corporate  tax dodgers he is in the opinion of many already justly  branded as a sports cheat  unexampled in Scottish Football history, and in due course of time, his grave will metaphorically be spat upon.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:18 am - Jan 13, 2016

Interesting to note over on the Bears Den that while a handful of posters question the actions of the board and understand the potential validity of the 802 case for arrestment,  many just go on about fighting back and counter suing.

Why is it a good deal of Bears go for the ‘engage fists before brains approach’ in relation to any and every single problem that apparently comes there way? Why is it never the incompetence (or spivery)  from within that gets scrutinsed?

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on10:29 am - Jan 13, 2016

Rangers in Court of Session today in front of Lord Woolman.  

Unfair prejudice petition from MASH Holdings unders s996 of Companies Act.  

In laymans terms this is an action by shareholders seeking to prevent the company from doing something that prejudices the interests of shareholders.  

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:29 am - Jan 13, 2016

wottpi 13th January 2016 at 10:18 am

Here is an example of a bear engaging his brain in a very good post from JJ’s site on this very subject. I won’t give his name as he no doubt would post here if he was of a mind to. Seems like the kind of guy that the bears should be listening to!

“I’m not usually one for speculation, but I can confidently predict that if the solicitor for 802 Works told the truth in court and “There was no notice of problems until payment was asked for” – the outstanding money will be ringfenced on the 15th. Whether the wifi was fit for purpose or not is irrelevant, there are procedures in place for dealing with these kinds of disputes. The consumer must give their supplier a chance to fix any problems before even the ombudsman will look at their claim, let alone the courts. Whether your name is Joe Bloggs and you live in an end terrace, or Rangers Football Club operating out of Edmiston Drive, you can’t just ignore a legal contact because you claim you don’t like the service.
It’s going to be an interesting January that’s for sure.”

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on10:32 am - Jan 13, 2016

Grim on the transfer front for Sevco in today’s papers   
Cammy Bell begging to be allowed to go on loan to Aberdeen.  
Law and Clark going
Waghorn probably going. 
And only two pre-contracts from Acrington Stanley to offset it.  Oh dear.  

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:53 am - Jan 13, 2016

zerotolerance1903 13th January 2016 at 10:32 am

Isn’t it about time the fans decided to boycott Ibrox? Isn’t that what they do whenever the board starts to show signs of common sense austerity? It worked before, and look at the howling success that’s been14

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on12:57 pm - Jan 13, 2016

Zero Tolerance I think you are forgetting about the new Zidane (Forrester) who’s so good TRFC have only offered him 6 months after Donny Rovers released him.  He’s also so good that Watford, Aston Villa and Brentford all released him as opposed to offering a new contract.  Unless you count the loan spell at Killie, Watford are the only club apparently to have signed him while not out of contract when they signed him from Northampton Town as a 10 year old.

View Comment

LUGOSIPosted on1:11 pm - Jan 13, 2016

I see that Chris Ze List Graham is promoting another Rangers Supporters Trust pop up shop at Ibrox Primary School before their game on Saturday. On sale will be RST T-shirts (ethically sourced, no doubt) which might cause a problem if Craig Houston sees this as a threat to Sons of Struth merchandising and he organises another boycott.
I remember thinking at the end of last year when the first of these took place that there was no press coverage of the sale of one of their primary schools by Glasgow City Council especially if it was sold to an entity with ‘Rangers’ in its title.
Surely this can’t simply be a hire in the same way you book a Fives pitch?
I wonder if State Aid Guy has a view? If only we could coax a word out of him.

View Comment

beanosPosted on3:57 pm - Jan 13, 2016

This company must have some of highest legal and pr fees in it’s sector. Nothing that they spend money on is adding any value to the business. The whole company is geared towards presenting a positive impression to it’s customers in the face of damning evidence.
All of the warning signs have been there for some time for those willing to look. more come out by the day.
Paying off the Ashley loan must be for the securities. I’m not sure what the next step is but it is very difficult to see the company staying solvent for the calendar year.
More of the customers are starting to come around to the reality. it can’t be long before it all goes pear shaped. the tipping point could be if players move on in the window and are not replaced. Even the customers who don’t pay attention to the bigger picture will be unsatisfied with the product.
How long can a company with no credit line, ill regard to its customers, an annual deficit of circa 8-10m and a raft of legal cases to come last?
JJ’s blog is interesting but I’m not sure I buy into the notion that he’s just another supporter with a blog. I remember his posts on the lse forum while RIFC were still listed. He definitely had an anti King / Pro Ashley agenda and pursued it quite aggressively. he seems to get early access to information from the Ashley camp in the same way that Phil Mac does. He doesn’t state that he has a source but he is definitely getting info before it is public. it also looks like the blog is a full time job for him just now.

View Comment

tonyPosted on4:22 pm - Jan 13, 2016

JJ’s  latest
The Rangers Retail DealAs we speculate on the rationale for CC King raising funds to repay Ashley’s loan, our thoughts should focus on the one asset that is not included in the loan bargain. Sports Direct is stated as having a ‘negative equity agreement‘ in regard to Ibrox Stadium. To establish what this actually means, we must revisit the genesis of the deal in July 2012.
The Rangers FC Ltd (TRFCL) and Sports Direct entered into a joint venture shareholders’ agreement to operate ‘Rangers Retail’ (Rangers Retail Ltd) with TRFCL holding 51% of Rangers Retail, which will produce, supply and sell branded goods to Rangers Ibrox superstore and the club’s online store. Sports Direct is responsible for day to day management, accounting and retail-related services to Rangers Retail.
Sports Direct through its affiliate ‘Sports Direct Retail Limited’  provided a £1.5 million draw-down facility to Rangers Retail for 5 years with interest being capitalized. Any money drawn down would be secured by a debenture from Rangers Retail over all TRFCL’s freehold or leasehold property.
The phrasing of this agreement was important because at that time a payment of £1.5m  + Vat was overdue on the Albion Street Car, which was paid on or before  15 January each year to the Head Tenant. There was also the purchase of Edmiston House to consider where an £80,000 deposit was lodged with the balance of the £800,000 + Vat  due by 28 February 2013.
The £1.5m draw-down was secured on Ibrox stadium. However to complicate matters, this draw-down was predicated on Ibrox stadium changing its name to The Sports Direct Arena.The headline from the King-facing SMSM at the time was that Green had sold the naming rights for £1. This was not the case. As the 51% shareholder in Rangers Retail, Green had most to gain from this facility. We must assume at this point that this draw-down has not been executed as it would have shown up as a security at The Land Registry.  Sports Direct currently has 75% of Rangers Retail. SD could therefore choose to draw down this facility at any time prior to July 2017 and insist that Ibrox stadium changes its name. The threat of doing so would expose King to a tsunami of protest as he would be the man responsible for losing the name of the spiritual homeland..
There are other legal implications in the Rangers Retail deal which I have previously touched on in comments. Sports Direct, in a Rangers Retail deadlock situation, has the legal right to buy-out the TRFCL shareholding in Rangers Retail for a fixed-price of 50% of the profit made in the previous 12 months.
TRFCL and Sports Direct can each appoint two directors to Rangers Retail and if they end-up in a deadlock situation the matter is passed to the senior management of TRFCL and Sports Direct to resolve and if this fails a buy-out is triggered. They are currently in deadlock. King and Ashley met on June 12 to resolve this deadlock,  but did not arrrive at compromise.
Following a buy-out, Rangers Retail would pay a royalty to TRFCL for certain exclusive worldwide intellectual property rights.
It is noted in the company accounts that no income is attributed to Rangers Retail. Is it possible that Ashley has taken 100% control of Rangers Retail? Could this be the rationale for the £5m payment? To buy back the 51% that was lost?
To some this conclusion might seem far-fetched, but with the current lack of transparency at Ibrox, anything is possible.

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on4:34 pm - Jan 13, 2016

Not been on for a while but “plus ca change” that someone’s saying their bills aren’t being paid by a team in blue working out of Ibrox. It’s OK though because as The Herald, a “quality” paper (that’s as opposed to tabloid, not necessarily a description of content!) reports:
Counsel for the club, Christopher Wilson, told the court that the sum sued for is two percent of the turnover… “The company is turning over that amount each week.”
…The annual report of accounts released in November showed that Rangers International Football Club incurred net losses of £7.5m – a drop of around £0.6 million.
…They also confirmed that £2.5 million of external funding needed  to be found before the end of the season. 
Two weeks ago Rangers announced that loans totalling £6.5million had been secured from chairman Dave King and several other investors to settle the £5million debt that was outstanding to Sports Direct, the firm owned by shareholder and businessman Mike Ashley that controls Rangers’ retail and merchandise streams.”Let’s leave aside why the club’s Counsel would be defending the Company when as we all know they are separate and distinct from each other (LOL) but the man contends the amount sued for is only 2% of turnover – so what. An astronomical turnover doesn’t matter if the costs are even higher, which they clearly are in this case if the RIFC are incurring eyewatering losses of £7.5m on that £16.5m turnover.
Rather than saying the amount sued for is 2% of turnover, wouldn’t a more accurate description be “the amount sued for would be an additional 4% on top of Rangers’ annual losses.
Also using loans to pay off loans is exactly the model of Wonga and their ilk – that that is the Wonga that have been advertised on Ashley’s Newcastle Utd shirts is, to me, another delicious irony btw – and one all agree is unsustainable in almost any circumstance.
Basically it seems to me the Counsel for the Club is doing a good job of making the prosecution’s case for it… Remember Rangers’ new motto: For every fiver we earn we’ll lose a tenner.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:17 pm - Jan 13, 2016

jockybhoy 13th January 2016 at 4:34 pm

Its back to the old Dragon’s Den scenario.

A high turnover figure is good as it shows people you have a business and a product people are interested in but it is keeping your costs low and making profits against that turnover that really matters.

Many folk over-estimate the importance of a large turnover and take it as the be all and end all.

However when costs and debts are taken into account then F… all of F… all is still F… all.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on5:24 pm - Jan 13, 2016

I’ve just read the JJ piece on the Retail deal, which has left me more confused than ever regarding the £5m loan repayment.
On the face of it, the loan was interest free, with no set repayment date. So far as we know, Ashley didn’t demand repayment, in fact so far as we know he couldn’t demand repayment. If he could, then rather than call a fairly pointless EGM, he should simply havetaken enforcement action to recover his money.
The only possible income generating loss to TRFC in return for the loan was the bundle of shares in RR. That meant that instead of 51% of any declared dividends from RR, TRFC would only get 25% for the duration of the loan.
However no dividends were paid by RR during the period of the loan, which means that the £5m was genuinely interest free. 
Who in their right mind swaps an interest free loan for a Wonga job from Hong Kong? There was a theory that King was using the loan as leverage to get Ashley to drop his legal actions. He might have tried, but surely King can’t have seriously expected Ashley to just cave in? And by all accounts, Ashley hasn’t.
Like much of the Sevco Saga, this makes no sense to me at all- unless the loan repayment is a precursor to a planned insolvency. Even that makes very little sense.
I’ve seen figures like 15% bandied about for the cost of the new loan. That’s close to £1m a year on top of existing losses. Can someone explain this to me, please. Because I’m definitely missing a piece of the jigsaw.

View Comment

GiovanniPosted on5:36 pm - Jan 13, 2016

If I remember correctly one of the conditions of the SD loan was that no one else could use Ibrox as security. Perhaps the new lenders insisted on having Ibrox as security. Hence the need to repay the SD loan.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on5:38 pm - Jan 13, 2016

I don’t think JJ is referring to the 5mol loan, its an earlier one.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:23 pm - Jan 13, 2016

From the latest Court of Session Roll
Friday 15th January
By Order
at 10.00am
1 CA196/15 Charles Green v Rangers International Football Club Plc   DAC Beachcroft Scotland LLP  Anderson Strathern LLP 

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on6:30 pm - Jan 13, 2016

wottpi 13th January 2016 at 5:17 pm #jockybhoy 13th January 2016 at 4:34 pm Correct 
Its back to the old Dragon’s Den scenario.
A high turnover figure is good as it shows people you have a business and a product people are interested in but it is keeping your costs low and making profits against that turnover that really matters.
Many folk over-estimate the importance of a large turnover and take it as the be all and end all.
However when costs and debts are taken into account then F… all of F… all is still F… all.
Wottpi, The old saying applies : Turnover is vanity, Profit is sanity. Talk of turnover is a diversion to take away attention from the true financial position that you note.

Scottish Football asks….are we not there yet?

View Comment

jimmciPosted on6:40 pm - Jan 13, 2016

Good God, Sportsound AGAIN leading with the Stranraer flares. Surely three nights in a row is way OTT unless they are seeking to deflect from talking about other stories whatever they could be.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on7:18 pm - Jan 13, 2016
Ticketus and others v Whyte and others

Room 2 master marsh 16:00
Rolls courts London.

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on7:26 pm - Jan 13, 2016

There is more court action these days than you would get during Wimbledon fortnight.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on7:50 pm - Jan 13, 2016

Are we on the outside courts,I take it we move to the Queens then the centre courts for the finale ,JC & co deserve the best seats .

View Comment

erniePosted on7:54 pm - Jan 13, 2016

Redlichtie.  Don’t forget the third part of that sound advice: ” but cash is king”
Or in the case of this particular King, other peoples cash.
Do they have the sanity to overcome their vanity and profit from a turnover us diddies can only dream of?
To hell with it, too complicated… aboot a’ them flares eh?

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on7:59 pm - Jan 13, 2016

Re the JJ/SoF post Tony has copied here.

Unless I’m mistaken the RRL set up is that TRFC hold 51% of shares but SD hold 49% that count double for Financial matters (I think it was EcoJon/Ecobhoy that originally  asked when is a shareholder vote not on a financial matter).  Even the return of the 25% shareholding held as security does not stop SD enforcing the additional draw-down JJ claims will spark renaming of Ibrox because that is undeniably a financial matter which SD will always have sway on.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on8:09 pm - Jan 13, 2016

There is more court action these days than you would get during Wimbledon fortnight.
Is there a jester in the court? Are flares allowed in court or strictly suits and brogues only? Got a feeling these court cases will be serving longer than a Wimbledon fortnight.
 Any information on today’s event.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:10 pm - Jan 13, 2016

If charles Green wins his case on friday to have his legal fees paid and the wi-fi company have their cash owed ringfenced on friday. What next for SMSM on saturday? MW looks at £1 million pound player10

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:12 pm - Jan 13, 2016

If the wifi company gets to ringfence the RIFC/TRFC monies…should the SFA/SPFL not be obligated to investigate TRFC’s ability to fulfill its remaining fixture list this season ?

IIRC, when Martin Bain ringfenced Rangers monies in 2011, there was no intervention from the SFA or SPL – but at that time the SMSM had managed to keep a lid on the unavoidable Rangers’ financial meltdown.
[And an awful lot has happened at Ibrox since then, and not just admin. and liquidation.]

Should ‘ringfencing’ by a court not provide a massive red flag for the SPFL and SFA: independent proof that a member club has been declared a ‘high risk’ of going out of business ?

Should the governing bodies not revisit the financials submitted by TRFC before this season started ?
[Well, I am assuming that they were submitted – and thoroughly validated.  09]

View Comment

scottcPosted on8:26 pm - Jan 13, 2016

tony 13th January 2016 at 4:22 pm #JJ’s  latestThe Rangers Retail Deal …

Tony, without wanting to sound like I’m criticising, I think, if you cut & paste an entire blog you should really include a link to it as well. I’m sure we wouldn’t want JJ or anyone else copying a blog from here. 02

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:35 pm - Jan 13, 2016

Another court case tomorrow, in London – James Doleman thinks it’s just a procedural matter.
Thursday 14th January 2016
At 4 o’clock
Ticketus LLP and another v Whyte and others

View Comment

tonyPosted on8:35 pm - Jan 13, 2016

good point mate,apologies,i usually just give the link then the authors get the clicks,don’t know what i was thinking,i’m blaming the flu 

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on8:42 pm - Jan 13, 2016

one of your thoughts is worth more than a hundred of our media churnalists  musings any day of the week.

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on9:07 pm - Jan 13, 2016

“when Martin Bain ringfenced Rangers monies in 2011………..”
isn’t MB the only one to successfully get a result on this front ?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:21 pm - Jan 13, 2016

pau1mart1n 13th January 2016 at 9:07 pm #
“when Martin Bain ringfenced Rangers monies in 2011………..” isn’t MB the only one to successfully get a result on this front ?
I think Imran Ahmad was successful before he was paid off.

IIRC HMRC was also successful in late 2011 in getting an amount equivalent to the wee tax case ringfenced. However, I think HMRC diverted that sum to pay towards other social taxes (VAT, PAYE, NIC), leaving the wee tax case outstanding when the club went into administration.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on9:34 pm - Jan 13, 2016

Cluster One 13th January 2016 at 8:10 pm #

MW looks at £1 million pound player (leaving ?).

View Comment

James DolemanPosted on9:37 pm - Jan 13, 2016

Anyone able to go to COS on Friday?

I have the WiFi judgment in Glasgow 

View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:43 pm - Jan 13, 2016

yourhavingalaugh 13th January 2016 at 7:50 pm # ThomTheTim
Are we on the outside courts,I take it we move to the Queens then the centre courts for the finale ,JC & co deserve the best seats .
Its a mish mash really down here at RCOJ  bit o tennis and gowf:
Work your way up this way:
Bankruptcy Court (High Court)
Technology and Construction Court
Commercial Court & Admiralty Court
Court of Appeal Civil Division
Queen’s Bench Masters List 
Chancery Division – Judges 
Chancery Division – Masters

Then your off to UTT FTT the Lords Supreme courts etc.
No bets taken on who or how many of all of our protaganists may end up in which one at any given point. Legal roulette.21

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:54 pm - Jan 13, 2016

helpmaboab 13th January 2016 at 8:42 pm # Allyjambo one of your thoughts is worth more than a hundred of our media churnalists  musings any day of the week.
Thanks for that, boab, though that still leaves my thought process way below a five year old 05

Of course, you may well have meant that I should only have one thought per day, which would leave enough room in my brain for enough gunpowder to go pop!06

View Comment

oddjobPosted on9:55 pm - Jan 13, 2016

Paddy Malarkey,
Could it be that Waghorn is this year’s Lewis McLeod ?


View Comment

ianagainPosted on9:55 pm - Jan 13, 2016

Calling JC and Jambos x 2
Come in.

View Comment

Comments are closed.