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.
If 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?
Maybe 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?
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
easyJamboPosted on10:05 pm - Jan 13, 2016
James Doleman 13th January 2016 at 9:37 pm #
Anyone able to go to COS on Friday?
I have the WiFi judgment in Glasgow
=========================
I’m not available in the morning, but I would hope that JC is.
Bryce CurdyPosted on10:15 pm - Jan 13, 2016
Ok, I’m going to risk going out on a limb here, and as far as I can see nobody has already suggested this. And I don’t have all the answers.
When Sevco announced their Wifi deal whenever it was, it seemed to me a strange priority given their overall distressed status. Why prioritise Wifi ahead of scouting for example? So am I the only one suspecting this might be a completely contrived plan with the deal set up to fail. I’ll leave it to cleverer people than me to speculate how this might advantage the various relevant parties.
John ClarkPosted on10:21 pm - Jan 13, 2016
James Doleman 13th January 2016 at 9:37 pm #”Anyone able to go to COS on Friday?…”
easyJambo 13th January 2016 at 10:05 pm
“I’m not available in the morning, but I would hope that JC is.”
________–
Yes, I hope to be there! I much prefer Parliament house as a venue: nae big Effan polis to intimidate you, and no barrier between the QC’s and the public benches (except the back o’ their heids! I do wish some of them wouldn’t mumble into their ( in some cases) chubby chins!
ianagainPosted on10:22 pm - Jan 13, 2016
The Wi FI I think was part of the deal to get Commonwealth games gig for the sevens.
My mate used it to send pics.
Likely DCK just binned it after he had to pay for it.
StevieBCPosted on10:23 pm - Jan 13, 2016
Bryce Curdy 13th January 2016 at 10:15 pm #Ok, I’m going to risk going out on a limb here, and as far as I can see nobody has already suggested this…
================================
I think I know what you are alluding to BC – you cynic ! 
But, as far as I can tell, RIFC/TRFC has complained about the quality of the service/product – it has not complained about the pricing of the wifi installation etc. 
And of course, that proves nothing about anything !
View Comment
AllyjamboPosted on10:37 pm - Jan 13, 2016
Bryce Curdy 13th January 2016 at 10:15 pm
Like you, Bryce, it did seem to me to be a strange one, a sort of ‘look how big we are’ kind of thing, that fell in line with the bigging up of TRFC to make them appear more like their predecessor.
Whether or not the wifi was needed, or even stood a chance of being a commercial success, is, I think, irrelevant to the case currently in court. RIFC/TRFC haven’t put up any defence other than ‘it disnae work’, with not one word to suggest there was anything underhand in the deal itself. I’d have thought that would be their first line of defence against the interdict, if it was at all plausible, as they’ve clearly left it a bit late to claim the work done was substandard, and I’d expect showing the judge that there was a prima facie case for setting aside the deal would be enough to ensure the money isn’t ring-fenced! Even just putting it into their pleading would have given them, at least, two lines of argument against any arrestment of funds. I can’t imagine that, if there is a genuine case for having the deal set aside, they wouldn’t have used it in their argument against the ring-fencing.
There does, though, seem to be a strange belief, in some quarters, that it ‘isnae fair’ that the new board should have to pay for bad deals set up by the original board of TRFC. I’d expect that, if it’s found that the original board acted not in the best interests of RIFC/TRFC in some of the contracts they set up on behalf of the club/company, then it would be up to the current board to chase the miscreants for compensation, rather than to just not pay the bills as they fall due. Good luck to them with that one!
View Comment
upthehoopsPosted on10:38 pm - Jan 13, 2016
Just noticed a great point on Twitter. If Regan is so keen to adopt strict liability like UEFA do why is he not equally keen to adopt financial fair play?
View Comment
AllyjamboPosted on10:40 pm - Jan 13, 2016
ianagain 13th January 2016 at 10:22 pm # The Wi FI I think was part of the deal to get Commonwealth games gig for the sevens. My mate used it to send pics. Likely DCK just binned it after he had to pay for it.
_________________________
So the work done was so bad…that it worked perfectly
ianagainPosted on11:05 pm - Jan 13, 2016
Allyjambo 13th January 2016 at 10:40 pm # ianagain 13th January 2016 at 10:22 pm # The Wi FI I think was part of the deal to get Commonwealth games gig for the sevens. My mate used it to send pics. Likely DCK just binned it after he had to pay for it. _________________________
So the work done was so bad…that it worked perfectly
==============================================
Erm err well just Aye Sooper actually.
ianagainPosted on11:10 pm - Jan 13, 2016
BP Tris
I note a change to PAYPAL agreements. Sent to me tonight by them.
Does this mean you don’t get 100% ?
John ClarkPosted on11:15 pm - Jan 13, 2016
ianagain 13th January 2016 at 10:22 pm #
‘.The Wi FI I think was part of the deal to get Commonwealth games gig for the sevens…’
__________
Much was made in 2013, if I remember correctly, of the installation of wi-fi at both Ibrox and Celtic Park without reference to the CG.
I wasn’t paying a lot of attention at the time, so I don’t know whether they had to install it in order to get the CG gigs, or whether they got the CG gigs because they had it!
I wonder now whether there was public money involved in assisting either or both clubs to install it??
tonyPosted on11:16 pm - Jan 13, 2016
ianagain
just got that email too,just checked what info they gather
they practically know what i will be wearing tomorrow
MercDocPosted on11:16 pm - Jan 13, 2016
According to nefarious blogs, the wifi was bollocks but that is just an opinion. Iain Morgan is also referenced as the man that set up the deal. This man was or is a so called major investor during the start up venture of the club, company. He also apparently, oversaw the redundancies of staff. This man seems to have a lot of fingers in a lot of pies but flies under the radar. Is he still there?
View Comment
ianagainPosted on11:31 pm - Jan 13, 2016
John Clark 13th January 2016 at 11:15 pm # ianagain 13th January 2016 at 10:22 pm #‘.The Wi FI I think was part of the deal to get Commonwealth games gig for the sevens…’__________Much was made in 2013, if I remember correctly, of the installation of wi-fi at both Ibrox and Celtic Park without reference to the CG. I wasn’t paying a lot of attention at the time, so I don’t know whether they had to install it in order to get the CG gigs, or whether they got the CG gigs because they had it! I wonder now whether there was public money involved in assisting either or both clubs to install it??
=================================================================
If you check the Gold coast site for the next games its certainly part of the city bid requirements. Who pays unknown?
Im sure GCC will tell you. Go on,
MercDocPosted on11:59 pm - Jan 13, 2016
BT seem to be the Service Provider for the Commonwealth Games 2014, are Celtic’s ISP BT or Virgin?
Rangers were Virgin, I would assume Celtic’s ISP would be BT because of the Sponsorship of the games!
This might suggest Rangers paid for their own ISP and not part of the Games.
John ClarkPosted on12:08 am - Jan 14, 2016
ianagain 13th January 2016 at 11:31 pm
‘….If you check the Gold coast site for the next games its certainly part of the city bid requirements. Who pays unknown?Im sure GCC will tell you. Go on,..’
_________
It’s an interesting aspect of the present legal dispute.
I can hardly imagine that either Glasgow City Council or the Scottish Government -IF either had given financial assistance to Ibrox to install wi-fi- could remain indifferent if a small, honest company such as 802 Works was being denied payment because a lying Board refused to honour its contractual obligations on the spurious pretext of ‘dissatisfaction with the product’ a year at least after the installation was carried out!
We will not pre-judge, but wait and see how things pan out. And then, perhaps, ask questions.
John ClarkPosted on12:16 am - Jan 14, 2016
MercDoc 13th January 2016 at 11:59 pm
‘…Rangers were Virgin….’
___________
Eh, whit? Haven’t both good old RFC(IL) and the new club both been right royally shafted!
MercDocPosted on12:25 am - Jan 14, 2016
So why wasn’t Cisco used at Rangers? Cisco was installed at CFC start of 2013,14 season, in time for the Games and Cisco were a major sponsor.
View Comment
John ClarkPosted on12:27 am - Jan 14, 2016
By SDM and CW and the subsequent Boards, I should have added! Not by the Football Authorities or the SMSM or anyone else-only by their own!
View Comment
John ClarkPosted on12:46 am - Jan 14, 2016
MercDoc 13th January 2016 at 11:59 pm
‘..This might suggest Rangers paid for their own ISP and not part of the Games.’
______
And of course you may be right, MercDoc, and you’re quite right to make the point.
I think a whole lot of us, who used to just go along and support our football teams without a thought have begun to realise that there is a very potentially rotten world out there in the nexus between sport and civic /public finance and local / national politics…. and Law.
We have learned to question, and look for evidence, and take no one in authority on ‘his word’.
That is the real damage done to the Sport by SDM, that pillar of the business community.
Big PinkPosted on12:54 am - Jan 14, 2016
Ianagain
paypal take 3.4% PLUS 20p per transaction. That has always been the case.
We are looking at recurring payments via the bank probably cheaper from our PoV
View Comment
Paulmac2Posted on12:56 am - Jan 14, 2016
Sorry to digress…but having just watched the petition to parliament by Paul Quigley and Jeanette Findlay…I have to say they made a terrific case and presentation to the committee regards the offensive behaviour act…Kenny MacAskill’s contribution from the committee on the other hand….WOW…just WOW
Both Paul and Jeanette…presented in a well thought through structured and researched way how the act is unfit for purpose and excessive in its execution in comparison to other criminal acts…and provided good examples of fans from Motherwell and Hamilton who had been charged under the act…
Kenny in a rather overly robust fashion demanded to know, if Paul and Jeanette believed that a catholic Police officer in Northern Ireland being murdered was Sectarian??
Looking puzzled Jeanette…rightly stated they were not there to discuss murder but the offensive behaviour act…Kenny continued with the unrelated challenges…which Jeanette agreed that anyone murdered based on their faith is wrong…
At the end when a consensus was asked for by the chair to present the petition for revue to the Scottish Parliament…the only committee member who suggested there was no need….yep Kenny.
Bizarre is the only way I can describe his performance..
Big PinkPosted on12:57 am - Jan 14, 2016
Btw, we now have phone lines installed.
General contacts will be;
0141 459 1867
Phone-in line for callers to programmes is;
0141 459 1402
View Comment
Big PinkPosted on1:05 am - Jan 14, 2016
I think the offensive behaviour act has been a spectacular screw up by the government. The road to hell is paved with good intentions after all.
One of the sad and depressing aspects of it is the position of the act’s defenders that if you are pissing off both green and blue you must be doing somrthing right. The OF prism and bubble is everywhere it seems.
View Comment
jimboPosted on1:33 am - Jan 14, 2016
A wee bit off topic. But how important is a football ground?
For me wherever Celtic play at home is Celtic Park. When the old board talked about relocating to Cambuslang it didn’t bother me too much. Better access better parking (without wee neds wanting protection money) and a new stadium sounded good to me. Except the old board had about as much wherewithal as Dave King & his money. Instead we got wee Fergus and have a fine stadium although I would demolish the main stand and make it a proper oval arena. I loved when they demolished that old torn faced school in front of the stadium (strangely a lot of people were against that) it obstructed the view. Now we have the Celtic Way, I am so proud. And the whole neighbourhood is smartened up. Across the road is awesome.
Remember when there was talk of Hearts & Hibs ground sharing in the south side of the City? I thought that was a good idea too, but there was so much resistance from both sides. Maybe that was a step too far. After all you need a home regardless of where it is. Both Edinburgh teams are in areas where the land sales would catch a hefty amount towards new stadia. But the emotional and historic ties are profound for ‘most’?
Then there is Dundee. It’s almost funny how close these two teams are to each other. But who am I ? I know one thing is for sure I would join a satanic sect and worship the devil before I would ground share with sevco. So I know where people are coming from.
Which brings me to TRFC. They obviously can’t afford Ibrox or Murray Park. Why don’t they come to a deal at Hampdump to rent? It gets rid of the asbestos problems, the WiFi, maybe when they are away from the poisenious atmosphere at Ibrox they might stop singing sectarian songs? It could be good all round?
View Comment
HomunculusPosted on8:59 am - Jan 14, 2016
Allyjambo 13th January 2016 at 10:37 pm
===========================
You are correct, the business made an agreement for another business to make a supply to them. They are of the opinion that they have not received the level of service promised and are refusing to pay. That business disagrees and is taking them to Court in order to force payment. This is all perfectly normal business and unfortunately it does happen.
From a Scottish football perspective that is not the important issue though. Whether the service is wifi or not, whether the proper service was provided or not, who wins the Court case is not. That is really all just a matter between the parties concerned.
The real immediate issue from the point of view of Scottish football, and the one which really has to be addressed by the SFA / APFL is the matter of solvency. Whether or not this club will be able to see out the season and if not how are they going to deal with it.
The bottom line is that the wifi company believes that there is a real prospect of insolvency prior to their case being settled. Meaning that even if they win there would be little or no money there to pay them. They would be an unsecured creditor and would get little or nothing via administration or liquidation. More importantly they have convinced a Sheriff this is the case and obtained (I believe) an interim interdict, arresting funds which would satisfy the debt to them if they win their case.
As I understand it the matter has now gone before a Sheriff again and if the ruling is in their favour the interim part would become more permanent. The Court would be saying that based on the evidence before it there is a real danger of this company becoming insolvent in the not too distant future. Bearing in mind this is the club which must be promoted this year, for the good of Scottish football, that everything else falls apart without them.
The SFA / SPFL should be preparing for “crisis talks” on Friday if the Sheriff rules against them … sorry not against them, against Rangers.
View Comment
bfbpuzzledPosted on9:18 am - Jan 14, 2016
And yet the Stranraer smokescreen does its work for the SMSM look past that please
If one sends PayPal from a debit card and declares it to be for friends and family there is no 3.4% +20p to be paid – I do this often when transferring funds between two paypal business accounts which I have. This should work for payments to TSFM also.
View CommentYes, but that option is not available via a business account – unless you instigate the payment yourself (that is, NOT via the SFM Donations page). It may also contravene PayPal’s rules which could result in accounts being frozen.
At the moment, single donations can also be made direct by bank transfer to our bank account (details on Donate page)- where no fee is payable by us. On average, for every £1 donated via paypal, we retain about 90p.
We are investigating the option of taking recurring CC payments or DD via the bank.
Tris
AllyjamboPosted on9:28 am - Jan 14, 2016
John Clark 14th January 2016 at 12:16 am # MercDoc 13th January 2016 at 11:59 pm‘…Rangers were Virgin….’___________Eh, whit? Haven’t both good old RFC(IL) and the new club both been right royally shafted!
______________________________
I’d have hoped, JC, that at TRFC’s tender years…
View Comment
ProhibbyPosted on9:34 am - Jan 14, 2016
Homunculus 14th January 2016 at 8:59 am #
..”The SFA/SPFL should be preparing for “crisis talks” on Friday if the Sheriff rules against them … Sorry not against them, against Rangers.”
wottpiPosted on10:04 am - Jan 14, 2016
Homunculus 14th January 2016 at 8:59 am
Excellent summary.
However the Sheriff’s deliberations will need to take into account the current state of the compnay finances and the potential state of the company by the time the Wifi dispute comes to court.
As I have said the aim of the DCK board must be to scrape enough funds from wherever to get to the point where they have next seasons ticket money coming in.
The Sheriff will then have to take a view if promotion can be secured and if income levels will rise to improve the balance books. This will then of course have to be balanced against the known ongoing loses (for which RIFC may have been able to show some improvement in the July to Dec 15 period after the last published accounts), the potential costs of other legal cases against the club and the potential need for increased spending on players to compete at the higher level.
All this is going on while the company does not have a line of credit from the banks and issuing more shares to raise cash from investors (if there are indeed any our there) has hit a big hurdle.
However, on the surface, the club appears to have some money to spend to pay off major debts, sign new players and has clearly brought in new members of staff such as McParland as opposed to settling bills.
The general knowledge of how clubs like Portsmouth and Leeds have struggled for years with finances should also be taken into account.
The common sense approach would be that the club is in dire straits and in terms of cash flow and even with increased income this will flow out the door as quick as it comes in as there are no signs of running a break even sustainable business model anytime soon.
All that said I wouldn’t be surprised if they scrape through once again!!
View Comment
wottpiPosted on10:49 am - Jan 14, 2016
So today’s news from Ibrox is yet another low bid for a player from a Scottish Club. This time Michael O’Halleron of St Johnstone.
Some Bears initial reaction to the Saints turning down the derisory approach – Don’t do business with Scottish Clubs they are all leeches, F… um – keep the Blue pound within Ibrox etc.
However they were happy to take on this season’s stand-out midfielder Jason Holt from Hearts for an unchallenged and very low development fee, considering his experience, because Robbie Neilson would rather have seen the lad getting a game somewhere than bench warming at Tynie.
Yup, a club and support that really is an asset to Scottish Football.
View Comment
AllyjamboPosted on10:55 am - Jan 14, 2016
wottpi 14th January 2016 at 10:04 am
I do wonder if the Ibrox left hand knows what the right is doing! With a judge currently assessing whether or not he should ring-fence £300,000 of TRFC’s money, TRFC’s PR boys are highlighting the club’s attempts to spend £145,000 on a player, while, at the same time, letting the world know they have to reduce the player wage bill to allow for any new signings. It could be seen as a business in financial difficulty trying to spend it’s way out of trouble, which is, surely, the ultimate example of why the ring-fencing of funds would be the correct decision in the current case!
The club, by their publicised actions, could be judged as saying, ‘at this moment we have some money, but we are going to spend it!’ Not a good message to give out at this time, I’d have thought.
View Comment
wottpiPosted on11:10 am - Jan 14, 2016
Allyjambo 14th January 2016 at 10:55 am
Indeed, as I said the other day its all about the ‘pinstripes’ i.e trying to distract others by portraying wealth and success while under the surface your are paddling like a duck or simply attempting to con people.
I am sure many a poster will have their own example of apparently wealthy individuals running about in flash cars etc whose business and/or personal finances ended up going bust as it was just an unsustainable, debt ridden mess.
The Sheriff must surely have come across such behaviour himself and thus if he doesn’t see sense then no wonder cries of ‘the law is an ass’ will be heard once again.
On a secondary note can anyone tell us what ‘value’ McParland is adding to the club. Most of the signing targets to date seem to have been lads the Magic Hat wearer has come across on his journey and lads from just along the road who had a good game against you.
“I could do that – geez a job”
View Comment
HomunculusPosted on11:27 am - Jan 14, 2016
Allyjambo 14th January 2016 at 10:55 am
==========================
To me Dave King publicly stating that they need an additional £2.5m to see the season out, corroborated by the audited accounts, when they have only raised £1.5m (£6.5m – £5m to SD) should be the main issue here. Rangers have said they are short of money just to keep trading.
The Chairman and the auditors have as much as said that there is a real prospect of insolvency if they don’t raise even more funding. That means either having a share issue, obtaining further loans, or selling assets.
I would imagine that the material all freely available to the public, from the club itself, formed the basis of the wifi companies initial concerns and their case for the interim interdict. The big question is what has changed since then. The £6.5m loan is clearly not enough, purely based on simple arithmetic.
As to buying players and increasing the wages, there currently seems only one explanation for that. At least one reasonably highly valued players has or is going to be sold. If they could raise say £1m for a striker, and replace him for substantially less then it is difficult to see how they could resist that in the current financial situation.
View Comment
oddjobPosted on11:30 am - Jan 14, 2016
Allyjambo, Wottpi,
As my auld granny used to say,” aw fur coat and nae drawers” .
View Comment
wottpiPosted on11:52 am - Jan 14, 2016
As an aside, for the cash strapped club the Sheriff may want to see proof of the SD loan being repaid and the security of the assets and IP being back with the company as this would help there predicament.
At this time there is nothing in the public domain to indicate that this has been happened. Merely saying the loan has been repaid is surely not enough for the Sheriff to help in his decision making.
It is unclear what evidence has been presented to the court in this respect, if any.
View Comment
oddjobPosted on12:02 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Surely the Sheriff will not be content with the bold statement that a £5m loan has been repaid, especially since it has been replaced by an even bigger loan .
Counsel for the club/company declared that the turnover was greater than the disputed amount. He should hAve been asked to be more specific, and say what the outgoings were in relation to income.
andygraham.66Posted on12:39 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Real Madrid and Atletico handed 1 year transfer bans starting after this one.
The Record and Evening Times will report that if either wants Waghorn, they have 17 days to do so
View Comment
Bogs DolloxPosted on12:39 pm - Jan 14, 2016
When the TRFC Directors state that they need £2.5m to get to the end of the season what assumptions have been made about player sales and legal costs in calculating that number?
View Comment
AmFearLiathMòrPosted on1:03 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Just wondering how long it’ll be before we start hearing in certain sections of the media that St J are stifling Michael Halloran’s career by not accepting £5 and a couple of ginger bottles (that are now worthless anyway!), or that they’ll have an unhappy player on their hands if they don’t sell him etc. etc.
Everytime.
View Comment
gogsPosted on1:10 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Bogs Dollox 14th January 2016 at 12:39 pm #When the TRFC Directors state that they need £2.5m to get to the end of the season what assumptions have been made about player sales and legal costs in calculating that number?
—————————————————————————————————————————–These are the conditions of the signing off as a going concern.Now, I may be wrong, but the £2.5 million wasn’t the figure till the end of the season, but a year on from the accounts, which means that even taking into account all the ‘extra’ monies coming in from ST, conservative player sales etc next season, they will still be £2.5 million down by December?
1. Continued progression through the Scottish league structure. The Group’s forecast assumes the Club will achieve promotion to the SPFL Premiership at the conclusion of the 2015/16 season and will consolidate its position in the SPFL Premiership in 2016/17.
2. Season ticket sales, the timing and amount of which are consistent with the Club’s historic experience. The forecasts include an uplift in season ticket numbers and prices from season 2015/16 to reflect the expected return to the SPFL Premiership (while still remaining below the levels when the Club was previously in the SPL).
3. Matchday income, which is projected to grow as the Club progresses through the Scottish League structure.
4. Sponsorship, commercial and other non-match day income reflecting customer confidence returning and increased hospitality demand.
5. The exclusion of cash flows from dividends from Rangers Retail Limited, as the Board considers that it has limited visibility as regards the timing of any of these cash inflows.
6. Continued overhead cost reduction measures to reflect the Club’s operations returning to a more stable operating environment.
7. Payroll costs reflecting the current squad size and composition in perspective to its assumptions around league progression. The forecast cash flows assume conservative amounts generated from player sales.
8. The Group’s ability to secure further debt or equity finance to allow the Group to continue to meet its liabilities as they fall due.
LUGOSIPosted on1:32 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Following a conversation I had with a friend about two weeks ago my attention has been drawn to Page 12 of today’s Daily Record.
Under the headline “Sheriff Smith dies” the article, in its entirety, reads:
“The sheriff who found Rangers FC liable for the death of 66 fans in the 1971 Ibrox disaster has died. Irvine Smith passed away on Monday aged 89.”
My conversation two weeks ago concerned firstly, the absence of any reference to Sheriff Irvine Smith’s decision in 1973 for over forty years and secondly, the terms of Sheriff Irvine Smith’s findings which should be considered and comparisons drawn between the incumbents at the top of the marble staircase then and now.
Referring to the evidence of one Director, David Hope Sheriff Irvine Smith found:
“Mr Hope vacillated between his being unable to recall such a meeting, his denying any such meeting, his possibly having got the dates wrong, being mistaken, admitting he could have forgotten, stating that if he had attended such a meeting he would certainly have recalled it, and so on. There was hardly any variation on the theme of equivocation to which he did not resort. The evidence here is such that it has to be read to be believed.”
Referring to the then Manager, David White, who gave evidence that he was present at the meeting Sheriff Irvine Smith found:
“I am satisfied that he took no part in the discussion, nor was he even present at the relevant time.”
Referring to both witnesses Sheriff Irvine Smith found:
“…there is, I fear, no escape from the conclusion that on this matter their evidence must be rejected as wholly unreliable and untrustworthy…”
Plus ça change…
It will be interesting to see the reaction to this, for the Daily Record, brave reporting.
I doubt that the author of the piece will ever find their work appearing on the back pages of that esteemed organ.
bluPosted on2:15 pm - Jan 14, 2016
LUGOSI 14th January 2016 at 1:32 pm
=======================
LUGOSI, I’m not sure where you’re going with this but I’d like to offer some wider perspective. Football clubs/authorities and public authorities having little or no regard for fan safety and the media not reporting on it for more than a few days isn’t unique to Glasgow. Below is a comment from a Bradford City fan who was at Valley Parade on that fateful day in 1985, 14 years after events at Ibrox.
“Many people still don’t want to talk about the disaster. The Bradford way was keep it to ourselves – it worked collectively that we did that.
“It wasn’t covering anything up, it wasn’t avoiding the truth of what happened, everyone knows what happened, everyone knows it shouldn’t have happened.
“The letters that went to the club, the council’s failings, the police’s failings, even as supporters we allowed a culture where the gates were locked.
“A disaster is not black and white – it is a mass of factors.”
Ask yourself if friends and families of those who perished at football stadia below were satisfied that justice was served and seen to be so? As football fans we should have common cause with fellow fans and that was clearly there in Glasgow and across Scotland on January 2nd 1971.
The National Stadium, Lima, Peru (1964)
Accra Sports Stadium, Accra, Ghana (2001)
Hillsborough, Sheffield, England (1989)
National Stadium, Katmandu, Nepal (1998)
Mateo Flores National Stadium, Guatemala City, Guatemala (1996)
Estadio Monumental, Buenos Aires, Argentina (1968)
Valley Parade Stadium, Bradford, England (1985)
Lenin Stadium, Moscow, Russia (1982)
Heysel Stadium, Brussels, Belgium (1984)
(Huffington Post)
wottpiPosted on3:00 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Another court date for the diaries
View CommentIt has been confirmed that BDO’s application to the Court of Session to be granted leave to make a final appeal to the Supreme Court, the highest appeal court in the land will be heard on February 24.
bfbpuzzledPosted on3:15 pm - Jan 14, 2016
There is n assumption that the £6.5 million loan was a net figure, however there miay has been fees charged to be paid from it and heavy interest charges plus legal fees.At 10% fees the net take comes to below 6 million and with 15% per annum on the gross figure it said up nearly £1 million per annum until the mythical shares issue arrives.
That kind of cost for paying off SD is puzzling perhaps they were hoping that a few conditions and pressing issues could be removed in negotiation with MA and has arranged the new loan on that basis.
The above might show that’s the assumption that that the new loan leaves only £1million to be found is wrong and in fact the £2.5 million remains to be found assuming that even that is enough.
Eternal recurrence in action in Govan it seems…
StevieBCPosted on3:34 pm - Jan 14, 2016
This feels like deja vu – all over again – but…
With the continuing uncertainty about the Ibrox club’s finances re: ringfencing monies, rumours of meeting payroll pressures, rumours of bonuses not being paid, seeking a further loan to pay off a loan, cash required to see out the season etc.
To me, this has the feeling of January 2012.
IMO, the Blue Room incumbents could perhaps ‘justify’ to themselves that as long as they can offload some players for immediate cash, as well as offload players for nothing to reduce payroll – then this just might give them enough buffer to reach ST renewal time.
But this assumes some – even ‘conservative’ – transfer fees being paid to the Ibrox club this month.
The day after the transfer window slams shut might be interesting down Govan way.
Just wild speculation of course…
ianagainPosted on3:35 pm - Jan 14, 2016
http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/UKMOJ/bulletins/12ff47f?reqfrom=share
The man who kicked it all off Paul Baxendale Walker.
Court 21 1030 Justice Rose.
Jungle JimPosted on3:38 pm - Jan 14, 2016
I would imagine the over riding factor in replacing one loan with another is leeway. Even if it’s a worse deal they might have taken it to buy a little time if Ashley was making threatening noises.
You do get the impression that they are limping along from month to month with no clear strategy that will get them out of the mess they are in.
A Gers fan was telling me that if they can afford to bid for players then things can’t be too bad.
Unbelievable as it may appear when the bus does eventually crash most of them will be shocked.
Hoopy 7Posted on3:52 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Good Afternoon,
Lugosi at 1.32 pm
Reference to the passing of Sheriff J Irvine Smith.
He was a man with a fearsome reputation who did not suffer fools gladly and who could reduce the lawyers appearing before him to quivering wrecks with his sharp intellect.
As a novice I first appeared before him in 1976 when I turned up late for his Court. Having been made aware of his reputation, I expected to be put through the wringer. Instead I encountered the most charming man who treated me with the utmost kindness and respect.
I could be wrong but there is an old anecdote which is attributed to him, when sentencing an offender to six months, the offender retorted that he would do that standing on his head, the Sheriff then gave him another six months replying to the offender that that would get him back on his feet.
If only there were more like him.
On a more serious note if BDO are refused leave to appeal them both King and Murray should resign immediately from TRIFC as they will have been held to have been directors at Rangers when an illegal tax evasion scheme was operated. In short they are not fit and proper.
jockybhoyPosted on4:01 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Blu: I agree with the premise of your post but only 10 years earlier two people died on that staircase and 44 were injured. In the intervening years there were apparently two more incidents, one only 2 years before the ’71 accident, though no additional fatalities. I would suggest that is the issue. An accident is an unforeseen circumstance that causes damage of injury. If something has been proven dangerous on a number of occasions but isn’t rectified then it is not really an accident but is, as Sheriff Smith stated “due to the fault and negligence of the defenders”… etc.
Not trying to cause an issue here but the fact that Smith wrote that “40 years on he was viewed with disapproval by some Rangers-supporting friends, who accuse him of “disloyalty” – who presumably wanted him to treat “their club” different in law to others is exactly the type of issue that this site was set up to address.
ThomTheThimPosted on4:21 pm - Jan 14, 2016
jockybhoy 14th January 2016 at 4:01 pm #
After the earlier incidents, they were given recommendations as to dealing with the situation.
One was to tunnel midway through the terracing, thereby reducing the volume of traffic emerging from the top of the stairs, combined with “fanning” the staircase, so that as spectators descended, the pressure of bodies was eased, due to the increased widening of the stairs on descent.
Neither was heeded nor incorporated, due to expense.
For anyone who may be interested, there is a very good article to be found, if you Google Fallen Masonry.
vansenPosted on4:22 pm - Jan 14, 2016
You spin me round like a record baby…..
I agree that this is beginning to feel an awful like 2012. I remember how a club, just into administration, began the necessary process of cutting costs by trying to sign a player and add to the wagebill.
Nothing that is said or happens with that entity should come as a surprise. But there is always something!
View Comment
bluPosted on4:42 pm - Jan 14, 2016
jockybhoy 14th January 2016 at 4:01 pm #Blu: I agree with the premise of your post but only 10 years earlier two people died on that staircase and 44 were injured. In the intervening years there were apparently two more incidents, one only 2 years before the ’71 accident, though no additional fatalities. I would suggest that is the issue. An accident is an unforeseen circumstance that causes damage of injury. If something has been proven dangerous on a number of occasions but isn’t rectified then it is not really an accident but is, as Sheriff Smith stated “due to the fault and negligence of the defenders”… etc. Not trying to cause an issue here but the fact that Smith wrote that “40 years on he was viewed with disapproval by some Rangers-supporting friends, who accuse him of “disloyalty” – who presumably wanted him to treat “their club” different in law to others is exactly the type of issue that this site was set up to address.
=======================================
jockybhoy, I’m glad that you agree at least in part with the point of my post and I appreciate that you’re keen to avoid discussion that may drag us into areas that are inappropriate here. Me too. However, the earlier incidents and the fact that Sheriff Irvine Smith’s not so loyal pals gave him a hard time for doing his job and apportioning blame in the right place rather emphasises my point – clubs, public bodies and the media didn’t (and still don’t) care about football fans, whichever club they might support. This is a far bigger issue than your or my view that one club has been treated with favour over a number of years.
View Comment
Billy BoycePosted on4:44 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Hoopy 7 14th January 2016 at 3:52 pm #
Reference to the passing of Sheriff J Irvine Smith.
Digressing I know, but the late Joe Beltrami, in his book, told of a defence agent making an impassioned plea on behalf of his client. No sooner had he finished than the Sheriff bellowed from the bench “You can f*ck off”. The esteemed beak paused for a second then continued in measured tone, “I believe these were the words your client uttered to the officer when he was arrested”.
I wonder if there will be any judicial jokers among the M’Luds hearing the forthcoming Sevco cases – or will the accused be sufficient entertainment in their own right?
View Comment
ianagainPosted on4:56 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Whoops rubbish at copy and paste on android phone thingy:
Ref the Tax expert who started the whole bout of fiddling when he met the then David Murray. He’s re appeared.
Chancery Division – JudgesJustice.gov.uk sent this bulletin at 14-01-2016 02:01 PM GMT
COURT 21
Before MRS JUSTICE ROSE
Friday, 15 January 2016
At half past 10
APPLICATION
HC-2013-000389 Barker v Baxendale-Walker and another
StevieBCPosted on5:13 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Why athletics’ doping scandal is so much worse than FIFA corruption
https://theconversation.com/why-athletics-doping-scandal-is-so-much-worse-than-fifa-corruption-53095
===================================================
Interesting article about the IAAF trying to deal with corruption and doping, and ‘rebranding’.
It aligns with some fundamental questions raised by RTC / SFM.
The SFA could be publicly canvassing for customer feedback with the query:
“Should the promotion and defence of sporting integrity be the number one priority in Scottish football?”
If the answer is yes, then changes to the rules, policies, structures, leadership etc. should naturally evolve.
If the answer is no, then we all know where we stand and we can then make our own decisions about whether or not to continue supporting the senior game.
But will the question ever be asked of the SFA ? 
HomunculusPosted on5:40 pm - Jan 14, 2016
From memory, and I don’t have the records to hand, JJ has got a fundamental issue wrong here.
Resolution 10 was in relation to the dis-application of pre-emption. That was a special resolution and was defeated.
The PLC has been authorised by the shareholders to issue around 40m shares. Whether they can have a share or rights issue with no listing is another matter.
Apologies if I have that wrong.
With regards the £500,000 “loan”. If the Court decides (confirms) that the PLC is in real danger of becoming insolvent in the near future then should the people who run a CIC really provide an unsecured interest free loan of £500,000 to that PLC, with no date for repayment.
Is that really in the best interests of the members who put that money in specifically to buy shares in the PLC.
View Comment
vansenPosted on5:42 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Re: StevieBC
It is an interesting concept, sporting integrity. The fact that it is laughed at and ridiculed by media and some fans says it all.
Personally i like the idea that the club i follow, pay hard earned money on, support spiritually and financially, is competing against honest competitors. I like the honesty of competition. I like to know that an achievement earned is earned the right way.
However, i sense that the people running out game view it as a transient notion, something inconvenient that can be put aside. Certainly our media do, and judging by the views of some Rangers fans over the last few years, they do too. Win at all costs seems to be the mantra.
Sporting integrity should be a priority, fans need to know the game is honest and not corrupted. I remain positive that the forthcoming criminal trials will prove a watershed and the administrators of our game will be exposed and forced to resign. We will hopefully embark on a new era.
Unfortunately, sadly, if nothing changes, if the notion of integrity is alien and to be laughed at, then the game, our game, is beyond hope.
But i remain positive ☺
View Comment
vansenPosted on5:52 pm - Jan 14, 2016
While i am at it, i noticed on one of JJs latest blogs that he is utterly convinced that there is no appetite for title stripping, should that raise its head again, by our clubs.
However, i tend to think the clubs will take their lead from the fans. The paying fans. The fans that buy season tickets, tickets, merchandise and match day programmes, food and drink. If the fans decide to withdraw their financial support to their club in enough numbers, it is a pretty big message to ignore.
Its that crazy idea of sporting integrity again.
jockybhoyPosted on6:25 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Billy Boyce – am reading a book about The Scottish Enlightenment – the Scots’ Invention of the Modern World (Arthur Herman).
There’s a piece talking about Lord Kames, an esteemed judge, with a wee throwaway digression that as enlightened as he was he had no problem sentencing folk to death for relatively minor crimes. “…he pronounced the death sentence on an old acquaintance who had been an opponent in chess. “And that’s checkmate Thomas” he quipped as the man was led away.
Oh for such a judge in some of the upcoming cases…
StevieBCPosted on7:24 pm - Jan 14, 2016
jockybhoy 14th January 2016 at 6:25 pm #…
“…he pronounced the death sentence on an old acquaintance who had been an opponent in chess. “And that’s checkmate Thomas” he quipped as the man was led away…
==============================
Apparently, they are playing a lot of chess at Ibrox these days.
Everyone’s running around screaming: “We’re rooked !”
Allegedly…
Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:53 pm - Jan 14, 2016
vansen 14th January 2016 at 5:52 pm
========================
This is one of John James’ hobbyhorses.
I commented on a previous similar statement of his on page one of this thread.
tonyPosted on9:45 pm - Jan 14, 2016
from scotzine on twitter
Scotzine@scotzineRangers First have pulled the plug on their proposed loan offer to the club. Amidst disarray in their own board & club rejecting offer also.
SmugasPosted on10:01 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Does anyone remember Kevin Spacey’s brilliant John Doe character in the film Seven when, at the final revelation when he realises his cunning plan has surpassed even his depravity and desperation, utters the sentence “Oh and he didn’t even know!”
i cant think why I think of that now especially if they have to call in administrators due to the fans now not putting in their loan.
View Comment
occamPosted on10:22 pm - Jan 14, 2016
vansen 14th January 2016 at 5:52 pm
I think that the vast majority would approve title stripping! While at the same time being much less bothered about re-assignment. Let the records show the truth and nothing more.
vansenPosted on10:39 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Hi occam,
Absolutely, should the appeal fail and we have a clear decision that should render a decade plus worth of players illegible, not improperly registered, then titles and cups should go. Just to be clear, i would want no reassignment, just an acknowledgement that wrong was done and the records show it.
I recall the King statement where he made clear that no titles would be taken. Playing to the gallery of course. However, the confusing thing to me is that, clearly, there are substantial numbers of people, the SFA included, who trust King’s judgement, his word, and that this will all end up ok for Rangers.
I have to say, that might not be the case.
View Comment
tonyPosted on11:04 pm - Jan 14, 2016
vansen
Anyone who believes king after all the evidence put in front them deserves what they get, just my opinion though
AuldheidPosted on11:20 pm - Jan 14, 2016
vansen 14th January 2016 at 5:42 pm # Re: StevieBC
It is an interesting concept, sporting integrity. The fact that it is laughed at and ridiculed by media and some fans says it all.
Personally i like the idea that the club i follow, pay hard earned money on, support spiritually and financially, is competing against honest competitors. I like the honesty of competition. I like to know that an achievement earned is earned the right way.
However, i sense that the people running out game view it as a transient notion, something inconvenient that can be put aside. Certainly our media do, and judging by the views of some Rangers fans over the last few years, they do too. Win at all costs seems to be the mantra.
Sporting integrity should be a priority, fans need to know the game is honest and not corrupted. I remain positive that the forthcoming criminal trials will prove a watershed and the administrators of our game will be exposed and forced to resign. We will hopefully embark on a new era.
Unfortunately, sadly, if nothing changes, if the notion of integrity is alien and to be laughed at, then the game, our game, is beyond hope.
But i remain positive
=================
Having gone through the indictments there are 4 which link either directly or indirectly to the wee tax case or the (mis) commissioning of LNS.
What will be interesting is if the SFA’s role in either escapes attention and why.
Like you I’m hopeful it will not in the interests of justice being seen to be done.
As regards JJs views on removing titles if common sense prevails in the appeal, the decision (to borrow from the excellent Aberdeen fans’ banner) will not be taken by Chairmen via SFA/SPFL. It will be taken by supporters either this ST renewal round or next. The principles involved will not deteriorate with time.
View Comment
Paulmac2Posted on11:58 pm - Jan 14, 2016
Two things…
When the RF publicly decide to loan £500k to the TRFC….it reinforces the claim by those representing 802 that there is a real danger of liquidation when they are having to accept loans from a supporters group.
Secondly…the phrase “no appetite for stripping titles”…suggest there is a take it or leave choice on the subject? Either the players were illegally registered and the competitions won are removed from the records…or the players were properly registered (which the SFA under Brysons law says they were not) in which case there is no justifiable reason to remove the history record of honours won.
It really is that straight forward.
View Comment
RayCharlezPosted on12:56 am - Jan 15, 2016
From Herald http://bit.ly/1TYSsrM
SPORTS Direct owner Mike Ashley’s grip over key Rangers assets has been released, it has been revealed.
Securities held by the billionaire Sports Direct and Newcastle United owner over property including the Murray Park training ground, Edmiston House and Albion car park have been released in the last few days, according to Registers of Scotland documents. (StateAid nut was right)
However the Intellectual Property Office said it was unaware of any active moves or applications being made to release Sports Direct’s hold on the club’s valuable trademarks and badges.
An IPO spokesman said: “The owner of the UK-specific trademarks of Rangers are still owned SportsDirect.com Retail Ltd. There is no information that this is likely to change at present.”
The development comes over a week after Rangers announced it had taken out a £6.5 million loan from associates of club chairman Dave King – most of which would be used to pay off a £5 million emergency loan to Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct – which gave the company security over vital club assets.
Newcastle owner Ashley, who has a near 9% share in Rangers, gave the Scottish Championship club the money to help them remain solvent.
Registers of Scotland confirmed that application to discharge the securities over the assets was made by representatives of Sports Direct.
On Christmas Eve Rangers said that repayment of the loan was made that would see security over the Murray Park training base, the Albion car park, Edmiston House and their registered trademarks returned to their control.
As Sports Direct never confirmed receipt of Rangers money, the securities release is the first sign that Mr Ashley has accepted full reimbursement of the loan.
Confusion over the whether the loan was being paid off began a month ago, when a continuing bitter legal dispute between Mr Ashley and Mr King took a new twist with a courtroom denial that the Ibrox club had actually repaid a £5m loan to the billionaire businessman.
The legal team acting for King had told a High Court hearing in London that the loan had been repaid to Ashley in full.
However, on the second day of a legal dispute hearing, David Quest QC, acting for Ashley, told a judge that was not the case. Mr Quest said the claim had come as a surprise and been investigated.
He said that they were still in the process of collecting the funds in order to make the repayment and were still waiting to collect another £500,000.
The Rangers International Football Club plc board had previously said it was not in the club’s interests to repay the loan.
Speaking at the club’s AGM in November Mr King explained the decision to go back on a previous pledge not to return the money to Sports Direct, which was not repayable on demand and had no fixed repayment date.
A host of Rangers and club-related trademarks and logos including the famous RFC Scroll crest and the Ready logo were held by Mr Ashley and Sports Direct as security against the £5 million loan, taken by the club at the start of last year.
Ashley also had the right to appoint two directors to the board for the duration of the loan facility, tightening the Newcastle owner’s grip on the club.
In May, last year, Ashley called for an extraordinary meeting to pay back his £5m, even though it is understood the sum was payable on demand. The motion failed to receive the necessary backing from shareholders.
Through his Sports Direct empire, Ashley controls Rangers’ retail and merchandise streams and King and his fellow directors have been keen to renegotiate the deals to secure more favourable terms for Rangers.
The Newcastle United owner has launched a series of legal moves against the board in recent months while supporters continue to boycott official shops and Sports Direct outlets in protest at his controversial relationship with the club.
The Herald understands that any repayment will not have an effect on Mike Ashley’s control over the Rangers Retail joint-venture.
In January, last year, Sports Direct were given a further 26 percent of shares in Rangers Retail to add to the 49 percent which was already owned by the English businessman. It was a condition of the £5 million emergency loan to the club.
Even if the loan is paid off and Sports Direct did not have control of the shares, Mr Ashley would still have control of the company which runs the club’s entire retail and merchandise operation, including the club’s Rangers Megastore.
That is because only Sports Direct has A shares in the operation and even with 49 per cent of Rangers Retail, they are twice as valuable when it comes to voting. That’s because each A share receives two votes instead of just one on “Financial Matters”.
In November it emerged Mr Ashley, who is also Newcastle United owner, joined the Rangers Retail board with club chairman Dave King.
The billionaire Sports Direct chief had already been the ultimate controlling party of the division but after his appointment, his people outnumbered King’s by three to two.
The Rangers Retail board remains made up of four directors, Mr King and Rangers International Football Club plc director Paul Murray alongside Ashley, Sports Direct International chief executive David Forsey. Sports Direct’s head of legal Cameron Olsen is both company secretary of Rangers Retail and SDI.
The Rangers Retail registered office also remains at Sports Direct International HQ in Shirebrook, Derbyshire.
Mr King has previously admitted that the speed in which the Sports Direct loan would be paid off would be down to the company.
Can anyone explain on what basis Ashley is able to hold on to the IP assets for now?
View Comment
BarcabhoyPosted on1:06 am - Jan 15, 2016
Homunculus ,
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
Corrupt officialPosted on2:05 am - Jan 15, 2016
RayCharlez 15th January 2016 at 12:56 am
“Can anyone explain on what basis Ashley is able to hold on to the IP assets for now?”
————————————————————————————————————–
Possibly because he doesn’t consider the debt repaid in full. It was widely discussed that Sevco were in breach of the t & c’s of the interest free loan, perchance leading to it accruing interest, or some other penalties.
Whatever the reason, it looks like he would rather have his money back, than gamble on Sevco still being the legitimate owners after the criminal trial, so cashed his chips in…..Keeping the sauce. That sauce could take a lot of court time and expense to come to conclusion.
If the ownership of the physical assets is reassigned, then they only have value to the keyholder of Third Rangers. I imagine he could outbid anyone if they are eventually put up for auction.
Sports Direct blazers £19.99. Faux leather brogues, £9.99. gel knee protectors, free with every purchase. Sevco jerseys….sixty five quid noo.
About the author