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

HomunculusPosted on11:35 am - Dec 29, 2015


Smugas 29th December 2015 at 11:29 am
=============================

Bearing in mind they seemed to be willing to be repaid, at least in part, in equity. One can’t help but wonder how much they would have valued the shares at for the purposes of that exercise.

The problems with passing the resolutions regarding pre-emption rights put a stop to that, even more so with the CIC. They could presumably have “bought shares” in advance of a rights / share issue. Providing the company with immediate cash.

Mark Warburton might not have a plan B, I think the PLC is currently operating one.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:15 pm - Dec 29, 2015


@ Homunculus & Smugas.
The make up of the £11.25M, as previously advised by the club, is as follows:
£1.5M – due to Park Letham and Taylor loaned on 28-Mar-15
£0.75M – due to Park Letham and Taylor loaned on 28-Apr-15
£1.5M – due to New Oasis loaned on 22-May-15
£5M – due to Park, Letham, Taylor, King, Bennett and Murray loaned on 24-Dec-15 (tbc)
£2.5M – due to Park Letham and Taylor (and others?) to be provided on unspecified dates starting Dec-15.

The inter-company debt of £18.1M as at 30-Jun-2015 is the amount handed over by RIFC to TRFC at various stages in their life, £16.179M from the IPO in Dec-12, £3.033M from the share offer in Sep-14. From that total, the operating losses of RIFC are subtracted, as TRFC meets the day to day costs of RIFC (£581K in 2015).

If and when each of the directors loans are converted to equity then they will be added to the inter-company balance. 

The SD loan of £5M was direct to TRFC, so was not part of the inter-company debt. However, if the SD repayment is accepted and funded by the RIFC directors, when the amount is also converted to equity then we can expect that the inter-company balance will increase further.
————————————————
On a separate point, there was no provision in the 2015 accounts for the club to pay for either unsold stock or for onerous leases as in the 2014 accounts, so it looks as if that part of the “SD relationship” has been sorted and there will be no additional costs to the club arising from any boycott.   

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on12:28 pm - Dec 29, 2015


The offensive singing yet again at Ibrox.
We all hear it, we sometimes can talk about it on here,nothing changes.  The smsm hear it they sometimes make a token gesture mentioning it nothing changes.  Everyone hears it because it is so loud and sung by thousands. How many minorities make a majority?  It is just accepted by, smsm, SFA, SPFL, the Police  and the refereee on the park. What if a team walked off the park as a result of this offensive behaviour, how would our smsm and SFA deal with that? I can guess how. 
How can this continously be accepted?, well IMO it is accepted because it is in Scotland, it is that simple.  It will not go away until it is properly confronted. How can these supporters of this club be promoted (by you know who) as being a benefit to Scottish football if they are back in the top league, HOW?  This is one of the many reasons I do not want to attend a match with my team playing them ever again. 

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on12:48 pm - Dec 29, 2015


Afternoon all.
A capacity crowd at Ibrox yesterday & the best team won.
Thing is,this was probably TRFCs biggest pay day of the season.15k walk-up fans,hospitality & TV cash.I reckon after costs TRFC made around £300k yesterday.Unless they have a big draw in the Scottish cup,this’ll be as good as it gets.
As far as we know,they’re still spending over £2m per month.5 months until the end of May means costs of no less than £10m.Gate receipts will be lucky to meet 25% of this so unless at least £7.5m is found then TRFC cannot survive the season.
So:£7.5m needed
£3.5m unpaid to 3bears
£5m to Sports Direct?.
Has £2.5m stated in accounts already been advanced?.
If not base case scenario is TRFC will have borrowed around £16m to get to the end of the season.If gates fall & the promised £2.5m has already been advanced then the total will be at least £20m.
The team will then need to be rebuilt during the close season,especially if promotion is achieved.How much will this cost?.
Are the shareholders really willing to throw north of £20m at TRFC with very little,if any hope of return?.
If so,then I can see them demanding not only the IP rights,but Ibrox also as security(claims & court cases not withstanding).they may also make this a fixed charge.
Could they then set up a pre-pack admin,knowing promotion would be difficult,but then build a cost effective club owning its own assets?.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on1:24 pm - Dec 29, 2015


Valentinesclown
A few weeks ago in an away match in Europe ,flares were used at this match,the culprits where identified within a few days of their team returning home,their team is considering,quite rightly,of suing them for any costs their club will incur through these fans stupidity ,this act of stupidity warranted a mention in the local press,fast forward a few weeks to another football match involving a team from the same city,songs are sung that have been banned a lot longer than flares and what reaction do we get to thousands possibly going into millions of watching viewers if not being personally offended,but disgusted at what they are subject to listen to ,songs that,in this modern day,the singers off should be dragged from their homes and shipped off to a penal colony ,this would have to be on another planet ,but as we know,everyone in a position to do something about this have a habit to ignore this,Scotland’s shame,well ,our authorities are the bigger shame along with the gutter press etc we have in our very small poisoned nation.
I would like to wish our Government ,Glasgow District Council,Police Scotland and the Scottish Press a Happy and Peaceful ,sorry scrub the last word there,New Year,what a future our families in Scotland have ahead of them with you lot running the show.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:33 pm - Dec 29, 2015


easyJambo 29th December 2015 at 12:15 pm
===============================

Thank you

Just on the debt for equity swap. That is clearly currently problematic, as the resolution which would have allowed it to be done in a fairly straightforward way was rejected. They can really only have a share issue now, and that might be problematic as well.

Secondly, even if they can do it that would result in the share issue basically just cancelling debt to it’s own shareholders. They would have an issue which would not actually raise any new money.

Just for the sake of argument. 40m shares at 25p = £10m. If that is a swap for equity then the shares have already been paid for and nothing new comes into the club.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on3:22 pm - Dec 29, 2015


Homunculus 29th December 2015 at 2:33 pm #
Just for the sake of argument. 40m shares at 25p = £10m. If that is a swap for equity then the shares have already been paid for and nothing new comes into the club.
====================================
That is correct, but it could still be made to work.  A share offer could be made to existing shareholders with the funds raised used to repay the loans. The share offer would be underwritten by the lender directors and the Rangers First CIC so that they pick up as many of the unsold shares as are available. 

The price needn’t be 25p either.  Let’s say it is 20p which would raise £8M.  The supporters groups would provide new money, as would Ashley and the Easdales if they wanted to protect their voting share. Let’s say that raised £2 in new money.  For the 3 Bears and others, their outstanding loans would be reduced by the other £6M, and they wouldn’t need to hand over any new cash.  

The next step would be to call an EGM with an ordinary resolution to issue another 40M shares from existing shareholders. The resolution would only need a simple 50%+1 vote in favour to be passed. Repeat the previous share offer, say at 15p to raise the another £6M to pay off the balance of the loans.  Again, if Ashley and the Easdales wanted to protect their interests, then they would have to come up with new money, while the lenders need not put up another penny.

One issue I could see with that approach would be the possibility of the “concert party” exceeding 30% of the shares issued and being forced to make an offer to other shareholders.

Once the dust settles, the Beaufort/Easdales/Ashley blocks could well be marginalised.    

Of course the big uncertainty is ownership of the assets depending on the outcome of the criminal trials, despite what Paul Murray said on 17th December in his STV interview.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:49 pm - Dec 29, 2015


Apologies if I’m being slow EJ.  Where does the initial £6m come from to repay the 3Bs if it isn’t new money from the 3Bs or King?  (assuming as you do Ashley and Easdale account for the other £2m)

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:02 pm - Dec 29, 2015


easyJambo 29th December 2015 at 3:22 pm
============================

Interesting concept, but the fans would keep their hands on their ha’pennies, even at 15 or 20p a share.

“Why?”, you ask. 

DCK has poisoned the well with his talk of ‘over-investment’, ‘£30m kids’ inheritance’ etc. etc. The fans will want the RRM with ‘mulyins & mulyins’ to pay for them. They want DCK to prove Llambias (and by extension, MA) wrong.  

If RIFC/TRFC came out with a sensible (I know, I know) three or five year business plan that was predicated on financial probity & ensuring the future of TRFC for future generations of Billinhos & Billinhas, with transparency about how desperate the current situation is, then there’s a slim chance that the WATP mentality could be put on the back-burner for a season or two until there was financial security.

Sadly, I don’t think they could thole (at best) mid-table players/performances for several years.

They (the fans & the boards) are truly the Veruca Salt of Scottish football.   

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:13 pm - Dec 29, 2015


easyJambo 29th December 2015 at 3:22 pm
==============================

Indeed, but all that basically means is that people keep putting money into what is a loss making business.

Sentiment is fine, and if people want to keep buying more and more shares just to keep the business afloat then it is their money and they can chose to do with it what they want.

That’s not a business model though, it’s a hobby.

It’s just a pity the Financial Fair Play rules seem to have pretty much died a death. They were specifically designed to avoid situations like this and people putting money into football clubs simply to buy success.

If Rangers win the division this year, and I fully expect them to, whilst running the business at a substantial loss, with loans and share issues funding those losses then they are simply buying the divisional title.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:03 pm - Dec 29, 2015


Smugas 29th December 2015 at 3:49 pm #
Apologies if I’m being slow EJ.  Where does the initial £6m come from to repay the 3Bs if it isn’t new money from the 3Bs or King?  (assuming as you do Ashley and Easdale account for the other £2m)
=============================
Just as Homunculus said in a previous post “the shares have already been paid for and nothing new comes into the club”. The £6m has already been loaned to the club.  Despite the series of transactions involved it is just a debt for equity swap.

The fans groups are the only certain sources of new money, but given that the primary aim of RF and RST under the guise of the RF CIC is to buy shares then it is a no brainer. 

Let’s say that the 3 Bears underwrote £6M of the new shares, and because few people are likely to take up the offer they end up with the full allocation of £6M for 30M new shares. On the same day as the cash is due to be handed over, the RIFC Board make a decision to immediately repay the loans from the cash “raised”. So the 3 Bears are due to hand over £6M which will immediately be returned to them, effectively meaning no cash is exchanged, but the 3 Bears now own another 30M shares in lieu of their loans.

The value to the Board in doing it that way is to get the cash from the fans groups, while starting the process of converting the loans to equity and preserving the control of the 3 Bears over the company. 

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on6:15 pm - Dec 29, 2015


Follow up from yesterday:
moo ‏@moo_ted 11m11 minutes ago I will put myself out on a limb here confident that there will be no repercussions . David Murray is about to be given his comeuppance….
        

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:18 pm - Dec 29, 2015


easyJambo 29th December 2015 at 6:03 pm
==============================

Which would have been no problem if resolution 10 (I think) had been passed. They could simply have allocated the shares as pre-emption would not have been a problem.

Now they would have to arrange and have a proper share issue, presumably under-written, with all the costs that entails but with no stock exchange listing or NOMAD.

That or an EGM to try to push the special resolution through. With Mike Ashley probably fighting them every step of the way.

I have never understood why they antagonised him. Or why Craig Houston, Sandy Chugg etc thought it was a good idea to attack his shops and publicly embarrass the man (who I have absolutely no time for incidentally).

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on6:46 pm - Dec 29, 2015


Scotland has a very high number of CCTV cameras, Ibrox Stadium is in the First Minister’s constituency, there has been mass criminality connected to a law recently enacted by her party…I do not hold my breath waiting for action 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on7:17 pm - Dec 29, 2015


Homunculus 29th December 2015 at 6:18 pm #
========================
Under EU rules, if they limit the value of a share issue to €5M then there is no need for a prospectus which would save on costs.

The open offer in September 2014 was carried out without a prospectus. The costs were around £280K (£3.13M gross, £2.85M net proceeds). 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:30 pm - Dec 29, 2015


easyJambo 29th December 2015 at 7:17 pm
==============================

At current rates that would be about £3.7m, say similar costs for the sake of argument. That brings in about £3.5m.

Am I not right in saying that the original loans from Dave King et al are actually due in December 2015, though it’s unlikely they will push for that money to be repaid on time.

That would take up all of such a share issue, bring nothing into the club and actually cost it about quarter of a million pounds, but still leaving over £7m in outstanding debt.

I suppose it could be where the £2.5m needed to see out the season could come from. However, it again boils down to the good will of a few wealthy shareholders.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on7:38 pm - Dec 29, 2015


Thanks EJ, I follow now.  But, to be clear, your mechanism only brings in 2m of new money not 8m but there is the ever so trifling point that the club (don’t start) needs nearer the latter, not the former.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on7:45 pm - Dec 29, 2015


Love the EJ/Smugas/Homunculus/Jingso discourse. SFM at its very best.

It has been reported that the SFA are looking at the sectarian singing thing with a view to sanctions. I have to admit that I wasn’t really aware of it and not all that fussed at the time.

Probably the bar has been set too low by us all. Perhaps zero tolerance is the correct approach – no matter how big the can of worms opened.

Also, Jean Brodie visited SFM central today. Very pleased to have met her, and particularly fond f the wee treats she brought round too – as well as the chat.

Also, it was great to meet Barcabuster who also visited on Christmas Eve. He brought Jaffa cakes and a bottle of Talisker. M’lord Wobbly may even come back for that 🙂

Merry Christmas! -)

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:18 pm - Dec 29, 2015


Big Pink 29th December 2015 at 7:45 pm #
It has been reported that the SFA are looking at the sectarian singing thing with a view to sanctions.
—————————————-
Let’s hope sanctions is not a “fine”,I hear they don’t do “fine” payments very well.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:36 pm - Dec 29, 2015


Re: the dodgy singing at Ibrox.

Could someone charged with similar dodgy singing – in the street – claim that The Police
are ‘discriminating’ against the defendant and/or the police are enforcing the relevant 
law on a selective basis?
Exhibit 1: plentiful video evidence of TRFC singing and on air apologies from 
broadcasters – and all in front of numerous police officers and their Match Commander?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:40 pm - Dec 29, 2015


Smugas 29th December 2015 at 7:38 pm #
Homunculus 29th December 2015 at 7:30 pm #
—————————————————
The only new money coming into the club in the short term will be the £2.5M that is required to keep the lights on until the end of the season.  Where that money is coming from must be foremost in the minds of the Board.

The urgent “repayment” of the SD facility, assuming it goes through, can only be down to some external pressure, the source of which we can only speculate about. However, it doesn’t bring cash into the club, other than restoring the 51%/49% split of RRL dividends.  The revenue into RRL is currently restricted because of the fans groups boycotts, although I’m sure that individual fans were still purchasing merchandise for their kids at Christmas.

Again assuming that the repayment is accepted by SD, I’d expect that RRL will declare a dividend some time in January to coincide with the official announcement and transfer of shares.  RRL did the same thing on 27 Jan 2015 when the SD facility was set up, which provided a clean changeover position for the new split to commence.  Any dividend declared will be on the basis of 25% to TRFC for what will be around a full year’s trading.  If the proposed dividend is comparable to the previous one then TRFC could expect around £400K as their 25% share.  It may well be another year before they see a 51% dividend coming their way.

One party that does have cash at the moment is Rangers First. They currently claim to have 13,895 members who are contributing monthly. That is well in excess of the Foundation of Hearts 8,000+ members who are currently contributing around £125K a month into Hearts coffers.  Even if the RF revenue only matches Hearts, then, in the absence of a share exchange listing and limited share purchases since RIFC was delisted, they should be sitting on a cash pile of in excess of £1M.  I’d like to see their accounts to see exactly how much they have raised and spent.  Their accounting period ended on 30 Jun 2015, and their accounts are due to be published by 25 January 2016

Similarly, I’d expect that RST through their “Buy Rangers” scheme will also have accumulated a cash reserve, possibly another £500K, but that is a “finger in the air” figure.

You would have to guess that RIFC will be looking to access all those funds. As shareholders in their own right both RF and RST would have the right to apply for shares in a new issue and underwrite at least a proportion of unsold shares.

The Incorporation document for the “Rangers First 2014 Community Interest Company” is available from Companies House. The objectives and powers of the CIC are set out in the document (see attached extract). Being a CIC can actually be quite restrictive if you wanted to change how it works and its objectives.

My reading of what is in the document makes it clears that share purchases are key, although the powers do allow it to make “investments”.  I’m not sure if that would include making a loan though, hence I believe that any such investment will have to be through a share issue or disguised as such.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:48 pm - Dec 29, 2015


Somebody has just put in £5m to pay off Ashley – so we are told, and if it turns out not to be true, then the lies have really gone past Level 5 on the lie detector scale. They wouldn’t be that stupid- would they?
So let’s work on the assumption that £5m has been loaned to RIFC/TRFC to repay Ashley. Who are the lenders? And what are the terms? Interest bearing? Secured or unsecured?
I don’t think that King’s regime of total transparency will provide answers to any of those questions. Well, not complete and honest answers at any rate.
So if £5m can be, and has been, found, without a share issue, then why not another £2.5m on the same terms and from the same sources? Surely the providers of £5m won’t let the wheels come off for the sake of a mere £2.5m more?
I find it incredible that £5m has been raised. But given that it has been raised, then I would find it astonishing if the £2.5m can’t be raised. I simply don’t understand why money is being thrown away on this basket case, it makes no sense to me. If over £11m in total has been put in by way of soft loans by now, then the lenders have a huge incentive to keep the show on the road. Otherwise they have simply thrown away £11m.
How do they get their money back, though. That can only happen via a share issue at some stage, and a relaunch on some stock exchange as a listed company. Achieving that may well mean ditching King. And it will take time and cost a lot of money, if it ever happens.
Anyone who has part of the £11m soft loans must be prepared to write off their money, in my opinion.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:05 am - Dec 30, 2015


neepheid 29th December 2015 at 9:48 pm

While like many I would love to see the Big Hoose closed, I have always believed that there are enough RRM out there to drip feed enough cash in to keep the Zombie club alive, and that includes the fans hard earned cash.

For me the question has always been is there enough folk and cash out there to meet the aims of domestic and euro glory.
IMHO unless an middle or far eastern sugar daddy comes on board or euro franchise football comes to fruition  then the answer is no.
The Govan operational was critically wounded years ago by SDM and the cost of running Ibrox and full houses along with Murray Park is as much a burden as it is a benefit. 

I know I am a bore but it costs circa £14m a years to keep the basic show on the road so most of the season ticket money is gone as soon as it hits the bank.

There is nobody on the horizon to make up the annual circa £10m that would be required to even get close to Celtic or achieve Euro glory.

The talk from Warburton of developing talent and ‘ adding value’ in a moneyball scenario is the right approach but will takes years to produce any consistent results and financial benefits.

So, plenty fools out there to be parted from there money but they really should be realistic with regards to what can be achieved.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:21 am - Dec 30, 2015


Neepheid,

like Liam Clancy himself quoting Eric Bogle,

“…and I asks myself the same question…”

wottpi

agree wholeheartedly with that summary.  Interestingly though you like, like everyone else, discounts the option of actually trying to curb that 14m overhead.  Yet even more strangely (not least to the investors involved) the solution seems to be get to the SPL (as was) with precisely no evidence as to why that improves the situation other than some vague Handel accompanied European adventure.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:29 am - Dec 30, 2015


I would honestly be surprised if the new club ever wins the top title, regardless of how many soft loans they manage to  strong arm out of the wallets of RRR men . The game’s a bogey , and they all know it . The guys with supremacy in their genes will soon move on when they see their new darlings struggle for a top six place (before yet another meaningless reconstruction) . As the rousing chorus of BB reminds us, they are living in the past .

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:36 am - Dec 30, 2015


I wonder, if you did a straw poll even 3 months ago of said supremacy addicts where they were headed how many would have answered “Leicester!”

View Comment

RayCharlezPosted on1:08 am - Dec 30, 2015


We know King stashed cash in Bermuda.
http://mg.co.za/article/2008-05-30-dave-kings-bermuda-triangle
Is it not possible that he has other funds syphoned away that are now being drawn down?
Perhaps he has off-the-radar cash that he is willing to funnel into Ibrox.
Given the bizarre swings and roundabouts that have been a feature of the soap opera story in Govan I would not be too quick to discount this theory.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:18 am - Dec 30, 2015


RayCharlez 30th December 2015 at 1:08 am # We know King stashed cash in Bermuda. http://mg.co.za/article/2008-05-30-dave-kings-bermuda-triangle Is it not possible that he has other funds syphoned away that are now being drawn down? Perhaps he has off-the-radar cash that he is willing to funnel into Ibrox. Given the bizarre swings and roundabouts that have been a feature of the soap opera story in Govan I would not be too quick to discount this theory.
_____________________________________-
A similar thought crossed my mind as I read the ‘who’s mad enough to bankroll this basket case’ discussion.

If King is sneaking his illegally stashed SA money into the country via ‘soft loans’ into TRFC, I’d suggest it could well turn out to be the death of the young club. Unless SARS has forgiven him, I can’t imagine they won’t be watching him – especially in his role as such a high profile chairman of a high profile football club (in Scottish terms), then they are almost certain to ask the UK authorities to make enquiries as to where this quite large amount of money is coming from. What’s more, unless illegal routes are used, money laundering regulations will make tracing the source country(s) of the funds relatively easy.

If the only way the board can finance TRFC is to take such a chance, then there must surely be no money around to replace it, regardless of what legal consequences there might be.

Could the need for this money to remain, as much as possible, ‘under the radar’, explain why there has been so little discussion of it in the SMSM?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:21 am - Dec 30, 2015


My tuppence worth on the recent comments re sectarian singing. Sectarian and/or offensive singing and chanting is not exclusive to one club. However, many in the media are already circling the wagons with the ‘one is as bad as the other’ line. Unless the actual scale of the problem is faced up to then those who want to indulge (at any club) will be allowed to thrive. The media use the ‘whataboutery’ word to condemn supporters, when in truth they are using it to obscure the absolutely massive problem which clearly exists at one particular club, as evidenced yet again two days ago. 

If the mods don’t want this comment here, feel free to remove. I only wrote because I see some other comments on the subject have been allowed.

Have to go to work now. Have a nice day. 

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:05 am - Dec 30, 2015


RayCharlez 30th December 2015 at 1:08 am #We know King stashed cash in Bermuda. http://mg.co.za/article/2008-05-30-dave-kings-bermuda-triangle Is it not possible that he has other funds syphoned away that are now being drawn down? Perhaps he has off-the-radar cash that he is willing to funnel into Ibrox. Given the bizarre swings and roundabouts that have been a feature of the soap opera story in Govan I would not be too quick to discount this theory.

I certainly wouldn’t discount that theory. However King has three major problems with any “off the radar” wealth he might have stashed away.
First, it was a condition of his settlement with the SA courts that he should repatriate all his money (including money in family trusts) to South Africa. If he now starts pumping other offshore money into Ibrox, serious questions are likely to be asked back home.
Second, as part of his settlement with SARS, King will have been required to provide a formal statement to SARS of his worldwide assets. If King produces money from any source not on his statement of assets, then the SARS investigation will almost certainly be reopened.
Finally, he is extremely unlikely to be allowed to take any significant amount out of South Africa. The exchange control authorities only allow large sums of money out for the purposes of investments which they feel are likely to benefit South Africa. Flushing millions down the Ibrox toilet is not the kind of “investment” they have in mind.
I would be surprised if King didn’t have a few million tucked away in some offshore tax haven, which was “accidentally” not disclosed to the South African authorities. But he would have to be very careful indeed about using such (hypothetical, of course) money. The obvious way would be to use a proxy of some sort to make the soft loan.
Of course the beauty to King of RIFC being delisted is that the source of any loans is no longer subject to stock exchange disclosure requirements. I doubt if we will ever find out the true source of the latest £5m.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:29 am - Dec 30, 2015


Smugas 30th December 2015 at 12:21 am

I discount the ability to trim costs of the £14m (which is for all non footballing activities BTW) because the club from Govan always wants to be seen as Billy Big Baws and thus require the entourage and accouterments that go with that.

From the last accounts there has clearly been a reduction in staff over the years and most likely through the work of Llambais. Something like a reduction from 190 to 109 IIRC but the whole scouting and development network needs revamped so those numbers will rise.

I believe an effort has been made to cut costs but that can only achieve so much (maybe get it down to £10m if you are lucky) and eventually areas where budgets are reduced then require funding down the line, stadium maintenance being the obvious one.

The dumping of the big cash burner, Murray Park, to reduce costs loses a good facility with which to develop your own (under the right tutelage) and the lack of the facility does not give the impression to players you may want to sign , especially those from other countries, that you are as good and as big a club as you say you are. The days of busing players to public parks for training has long gone. Also what would the costs be of renting another appropriate training facility or entering into a partnership with say a university a la Hearts /Heriot Watt.

So it is a catch 22 situation. Reduce the costs and risk the inability to develop your own and attract good signings or keep paying out in the hope that starlets start shining and a diamond in the rough from the lower leagues and less fashionable parts of the world can be brought in and then sold on for big bucks.

The problem is that they have no cushion at the moment to see how things will pan out. The squad will need strengthening if the Premiership is achieved and while, with relatively small sums of cash,  a squad could be put together that would be decent enough to compete with the likes of those in the top six just now, that will get nowhere near Celtic or Euro Glory.

Celtic, if required,  have the ongoing reputation (although a little tarnished by the last two seasons) financial cushion and the wherewithal to buy and outbid for the same players, being tracked by Warburton /McParland, who see Scotland and the tortuous route to Euro football as an option for their career.  

Like I said,  a slow re-build is possible but reigning in aims and ambitions on the park for the next few years needs to go along with it or the whole thing implodes once again.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on10:16 am - Dec 30, 2015


We have the deaf,dumb & blind scenario being applied at the club from Govan ,instead of listening,talking & seeing what the rest of Scottish football has achieved they are adamant that their way is the only way,it is if you want to self destruct again,when the game plan has been set at such a high bar the pressure increases as time slips by,their total ignorance of the rest of the top flight teams to be standing still and allow them to ,not only catch up but to surge ahead of these teams is typical of the disrespect this club has for Scottish football ,let the people in charge of our game be warned of this,I cannot imagine the ground gained by these clubs being lost as important lessons have been learned,fans of the top flight clubs have been enjoying the game which was becoming boring pre 2011 and before this but thanks to the self destruction of the club from Govan Scottish football was handed an olive branch and appears to have grabbed this with open arms,it was interesting watching the latest Star Wars movie recently and the use of the phrase ,Forces of Darkness along with one or two others was eerily similar to comments attributed to a club from Govan,to thwart the evil aims of these forces help came from unexpected sources ,not that our clubs need this but any help to rid our game of the evil that has rooted itself in the corridors of our game will be outed,one day ,the game in Scotland will be given back to all the clubs and their fans,without fear or favour.
May the force be with us.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:20 am - Dec 30, 2015


Wottpi

agreed but see following,

neepheid, Ray Charles et al
whilst there may be a risk of what is essentially laundering allegedly involved (which as an aside might explain JJ’s eagerness to prove him potless) the fact remains that the best way to launder money isn’t through something that ultimately, as Wottpi explains, chooses to cost £10m per annum.

not unless it’s an ironic twist on the old joke “How do you make a small legal profit on a football club?”  “Start with a large illegal one!”

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:22 am - Dec 30, 2015


RayCharlez 30th December 2015 at 1:08 am 
Is it not possible that he has other funds syphoned away that are now being drawn down?
=========================================================

Apart from his maw’s purse, you mean 131309092121

(Whilst the above comment is in jest, indulge me for a moment:

What if it isn’t his kids’ inheritance he’s been using but his?)

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:17 pm - Dec 30, 2015


A few stories about TRFC in today’s SMSM; the usual puff pieces about Warburton, though some covering the more important matter of the sectarian/offensive singing. There is also the bumming up of a player not good enough for a lowly placed English League 1 club who is in line to sign for the Govan club. Total cost to the SMSM’s favourite club – £0 plus wages.

We wouldn’t expect anything better from our media who will use any excuse to fill their sports pages and websites with ‘Rangersness’, but wasn’t there a quite stunning announcement from Ibrox on Xmas Eve over a move costing £5m more than this high profile (now), low level player will? A repayment of a loan that was big news when first announced at the club’s AGM, but has somehow turned into not news at all now that the money has been sent! Now, while the normal, run of the mill bear will be more interested in the latest player signing PR, this £5m repayment is surely, under any stretch of the imagination, far more important to TRFC than someone who must surely be no more than a bit part player! Surely repaying a loan that has been a ball and chain to the club for most of this year must merit discussion at least within the red tops!

I realise that it might be difficult to follow up on a story brought to light last thing on the business day before Xmas, but news carries on over the holidays, and pressmen will have been on duty, well able to phone SD headquarters and ask the relevant questions, which, even if they go unanswered, would provide enough for them to regurgitate old spin and make a full page spread out of it. God, knows, they do that often enough. It’s not as though someone like Mike Ashley will be giving his top people extended leave, his zero hours bottom people, maybe, but not the guys he wants to steer the ship in his own absence, if he is indeed absent.

There’s a story there, much, much bigger than what’s his name from Doncaster. But for some reason nobody from any of the TRFC fanzines seems interested in following it up.

Without suggesting the ‘repayment’ hasn’t been made, there has to be a TRFC led reason for this lack of media interest!

NB.
I don’t read the rags, so maybe there has been coverage of this rather important event (other than the initial announcement), but I’ve not come across anything online today (with a day and a half of normal business time passed) and the usual media twitters are conspicuous by their absence! Perhaps hiding from any awkward ‘sectarian’ confrontation, but perhaps not keen to be asked about the SD loan repayment either! Perhaps sectarianism, more often than not having a squirrel produced to avoid it’s publicity, is, in fact, this weeks squirrel!

Watch this, I’ll click ‘Submit Comment’ and then discover that SD have confirmed the repayment of the loan, in full, and that they are rushing through the return of the security!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on2:23 pm - Dec 30, 2015


Jingso.Jimsie 30th December 2015 at 11:22 am #
——————————————————–
King’s personal wealth has been plummeting over the last few months.

If you accept that the bulk of his wealth is tied up in his majority shareholding in Micromega Holdings, then the share price has dropped from ZAR 19.70 at the end of September to just ZAR 12.35 today.  Added to that the ZAR has dropped in value against the GBP by 20% over the last year.

King’s shareholding in Micromega is held under the guise of Friedshelf 1372 (PTY) Ltd, which I believe is the King Family Trust. Friedshelf holds 63% of Micromega’s shares.

At the end of September 2015, that holding was worth £67.9M at the prevailing share price and exchange rate on that date. Today, exactly three months later, that same holding has dropped in value to £38.9M.

Even then, King’s daughter Tracey may be entitled to a share in that wealth.  She is also a director of Micromega after all, and a beneficiary of the Family Trust.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on2:52 pm - Dec 30, 2015


Graham Spiers putting his neck on the chopping block- very brave, though, and full credit to him for raising the issue.

https://t.co/zhJ5vlrNzO

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on2:53 pm - Dec 30, 2015


Onerous Contracts
What has happened to the onerous contracts ? Are they still being paid on time? Are they still being paid at all?
Or could it be that one or more of the individuals who set up or benefited from these contracts is facing a criminal case later this year…….
Thus providing an excuse to renege on the monthly payments?
Which begs the question
If an onerous contract holder doesn`t  get paid what can they do about it?

View Comment

nawlitePosted on3:01 pm - Dec 30, 2015


Just switched over to SSN in the midst of an interview with Neil Doncaster. Found the link online, so assume it’s the same full interview. Certainly the end part is what caught my attention given that it’s a “Neil Doncaster in non-Armageddon shock” interview. There’s probably still too much talk of Rangers in it, but to be fair, it seems to be Sky who are pushing that aspect with their questions and the clips used.
Still don’t trust/rate him, though, but his more-positive comments are welcome.
http://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/competitions/scottish-football/10114235/scottish-premiership-attendances-on-the-rise
 

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:24 pm - Dec 30, 2015


easyJambo 30th December 2015 at 2:23 pm
Jingso.Jimsie 30th December 2015 at 11:22 am
==============================

Apologies, it appears that I am Jimsie the Obscure today.

In response to RayCharlez’ speculation that DCK may have money ‘planked’ that ZARS don’t know about, I humourously pondered that he may be getting funded in the UK by the Bank of Mum*, like so many other impoverished offspring often are.
*For clarification, I have no idea how wealthy his mother is or isn’t.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:35 pm - Dec 30, 2015


goosygoosy 30th December 2015 at 2:53 pm #

If an onerous contract holder doesn`t get paid what can they do about it?
===================================

They can apply to the Court for a winding up order. Generally if that is granted the company will either pay it (assuming they agree the money is due), or place themselves into administration to prevent further action being taken against them.

https://www.mygov.scot/wind-up-a-company-that-owes-you-money/overview/

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on5:03 pm - Dec 30, 2015


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/35200708
re Fyvie being banned for 2 games for simulation.
“Rangers subsequently lodged a claim of wrongful dismissal against Halliday’s charge of violent conduct”.
Are the kick out and the subsequent head butt not 2 separate acts of violent conduct, deserving of a further red?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:05 pm - Dec 30, 2015


nh @2.45
Fair play to Spiers for his latest article.  I criticise him for blowing with the wind, but he knows the level of vitriol coming his way for being honest.
However, IMHO, I think his point is misdirected: he hopes that people like the MD Stewart Robinson can help TRFC drop the ‘baggage’.  It seems evident that the club is incapable or unwilling to deal with their issues.
The dodgy singing has returned with gusto since 2012.  The authorities have all looked the other way.

Spiers should have focused his article on the SFA and its Compliance Officer – and their dereliction of duty.
Or does the ‘looking the other way’ confirm support for the club’s behaviour?
Perceptions and all that…as we enter the year 2016!!!  🙁

View Comment

jimmciPosted on6:10 pm - Dec 30, 2015


Does this sound in any way familiar?
A Rangers player / players gets sent off and officials look to the other side to mete out punishmentThe Fyfvie ban is ridiculous. He was kicked, then pushed. Yes, he held his head when clearly he was only pushed in the chest. He did not fall or roll over. However the full media pack are on message. HE was the offender with poor wee Andy the offended.
Seems a wee rerun of the “shame game” where three Rangers players were sent off with one actually grappling with the ref. McCoist and Lennon all got pulled up.
Suspension handed to Lennon only. McCoist walks Scot free.
I sometimes wonder if Scottish football is more broken than even the most cynical observer believes. The pandering to the Govan mob seems to know no ends. I think I will completely give up on Scottish football in 2016 such is my disgust at the minute.

View Comment

ekt1mPosted on6:27 pm - Dec 30, 2015


Jimmci at 6.10pm.  Perhaps you can refresh my memory of the Charlie Mulgrew/ Kyle Lafferty incident when Mulgrew was sent off for a perceived head butt. Was the red card rescinded, or did he serve a suspension. What has brought this to my mind was Alan Stubbs’s reply to a hack’s question, “Do you think that Halliday’s red card will be overturned?” Quote- “It depends on who is on the panel” Unquote.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:55 pm - Dec 30, 2015


Wednesday, 30 December 2015, 18:30
by Rangers Football Club

RANGERS believes it is appropriate at this time to remind everyone of the Club’s position on anti-social behaviour within football grounds.

The Club operates a zero tolerance policy and continues to work tirelessly via the Follow with Pride campaign while supporting all initiatives aimed at tackling this problem.

The football authorities and Police Scotland know the Club is committed to eradicating all forms of unacceptable behaviour and it is disappointing that a minority engaged in inappropriate singing during the match against Hibernian at Ibrox Stadium on Monday, December 28.

At every home and away pre-match operations meeting unacceptable conduct is included on the agenda with the attention of both the Police and Stewards drawn to the need to deal with this matter robustly.

The Club will assist Police Scotland in identifying those responsible for the unacceptable behaviour on Monday.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on6:56 pm - Dec 30, 2015


I’d need to go back to the record books but my recollection was AFC down to ten men with mulgrew walking for the head butt. RFC make most of man advantage and win the game setting up a helicopter situation the following week (I think, at Tannadice?).  If Lafferty was cited for misconduct then either the hearing was delayed or RFC appealed (on what grounds?) but certainly Lafferty played in the decider and scored.

from memory.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:57 pm - Dec 30, 2015


Re the Andy Halliday incident, it is amazing how the the kick he aimed at Fyvie is being completely ignored. That is the type of offence that sees a straight red in many games every season. The perpetrators get no media sympathy either. If justice is to be truly done a review panel will simply swap the red card he did receive for the kick.  If he walks free, then we can assume kicking out at opponents is now allowed.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:15 pm - Dec 30, 2015


Homunculus 30th December 2015 at 6:55 pm #Wednesday, 30 December 2015, 18:30by Rangers Football Club

The Club will assist Police Scotland in identifying those responsible for the unacceptable behaviour on Monday.
======================================================================

…however Police Scotland resources are currently stretched as they continue the search for the SFA Match Delegate, who has been missing since the final whistle on Monday…

View Comment

andyPosted on7:20 pm - Dec 30, 2015


Homunculus 30th December 2015 at 6:55 pm #Wednesday, 30 December 2015, 18:30by Rangers Football Club
RANGERS believes it is appropriate at this time to remind everyone of the Club’s position on anti-social behaviour within football grounds.
The Club operates a zero tolerance policy and continues to work tirelessly via the Follow with Pride campaign while supporting all initiatives aimed at tackling this problem.
The football authorities and Police Scotland know the Club is committed to eradicating all forms of unacceptable behaviour and it is disappointing that a minority engaged in inappropriate singing during the match against Hibernian at Ibrox Stadium on Monday, December 28.
At every home and away pre-match operations meeting unacceptable conduct is included on the agenda with the attention of both the Police and Stewards drawn to the need to deal with this matter robustly.
The Club will assist Police Scotland in identifying those responsible for the unacceptable behaviour on Monday.
________________________
sounded like the same minority that was at the hampden semi

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:22 pm - Dec 30, 2015


The same minority who were at the 2011 league cup final.

Who were praised by a senior Policemen and a Politician.

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on7:26 pm - Dec 30, 2015


Offensive Singing
The Police are responsible for enforcing the law on citizens who break it. That includes football fans at all grounds
The SFA are the body the Scottish Government expect to deal with clubs on this issue
The TV Companies fund a sizeable part of Scottish football.
But they do so in exchange for a hate fest that is an affront to both Scotland and the UK. This disgrace has been mitigated in recent years but is about to start all over again next season
The offensive behaviour legislation is not being enforced in football grounds. The very place where it is most visible. The very place which stimulated the legislation.
It is clear that the issue is not the law but enforcement of the law when faced with thousands of offenders
Frankly
Since the SFA and SPFL are both corrupt organisations, they have no stake in a solution. So they will never solve this problem
 I reckon we need a further change in the law to compel the governing bodies and the clubs to stop this happening. Zero tolerance is needed
For Starters
 A short Scottish Government Bill to compel TV Companies to provide an unedited tape to the Police of all televised matches. If evidence of sectarian singing of any size is recorded both the TV Companies and the football authorities are given a hefty fine.
Why fine the TV Companies?
Because they want this behaviour to continue for commercial reasons .They need to be incentivised to change their behaviour The prospect of repeated fines will soon make this issue a key element in future TV contracts
Why not fine the clubs?
Because the governing bodies are corrupt.They should bear the cost of their corruption. They will soon find themselves under pressure from the majority of member clubs to put the cost where it belongs.That way the solution is out in the open and has widespread support The governing bodies may even be reformed in the process
Either Way
We need to stamp out this cancer 
We have a Scottish Parliament election next May
Is there a political party out there with more integrity than the SFA, the SPFL,  BT Sports,  or Sky?
I hope so

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on7:33 pm - Dec 30, 2015


hey neil, we’re still waiting on this one from post admin game, obviously you can’t rush these things.
Rangers face sectarian sanctions after offensive songs heard during defeat to KilmarnockAs though they did not have enough troubles without inviting more damage to their status and reputation, Rangers must wait to hear if they are to be sanctioned for the outbreaks of sectarian chants and songs which were heard at Ibrox during Saturday’s 1-0 defeat by Kilmarnock.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on7:37 pm - Dec 30, 2015


I smile at the diversion about being up to their knees in EBTs.

I’m no lyricist but repeatedly calling Alan Stubbs a sad EBT b……. Doesn’t really work now does it.  Minority singers or not

View Comment

SmugasPosted on7:41 pm - Dec 30, 2015


Interestingly you tube doesn’t immediately yield up film of that may 2009 mulgrew Lafferty game, just the incident itself.  Anyone help?  Recollection is bougherra was also in trouble that night.

View Comment

tonyPosted on7:57 pm - Dec 30, 2015


the stewards at ibrox didnt really do much about the singing,we now know why 
https://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC433635/GARRION-SECURITY-SERVICES-LIMITED/directors-secretaries

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:13 pm - Dec 30, 2015


the stewards at ibrox didnt really do much about the singing,we now know why https://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC433635/GARRION-SECURITY-SERVICES-LIMITED/directors-secretaries
———————–
Well yes exactly, as far as I remember one of the onerous contracts continues just with new faces.

Speaking of such it was so onerous that one of their employees had damage done to her by  the very fans she was employed to protect in the “non riot” after the snow bound game attended by Glasgow’s finest on horseback?
Or did I mis remember? 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:17 pm - Dec 30, 2015


Rangers have vowed to help police weed out the fans responsible for the sectarian chants heard during Monday’s clash with Hibernian.
http://www.eurosport.co.uk/football/rangers-to-assist-police-over-sectarian-chanting_sto5043145/story.shtml#uk-yh-rf
—————————-
Are the ibrox board now saying the police are involved?
Has a report been sent to the police?
Who sent the report?
Or was it a complaint to the police?
Or are the police now acting after media reports?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:15 pm - Dec 30, 2015


If the footballing equivalent is consistently applied then it would seem Alan Stubbs should expect a two match ban for listening!

View Comment

seniorPosted on11:39 pm - Dec 30, 2015


The football authorities and Police Scotland know the Club is committed to eradicating all forms of unacceptable behaviour and it is disappointing that a minority engaged in inappropriate singing during the match against Hibernian at Ibrox Stadium on Monday, December 28.
                                              +++++++++++++++++++++++++

had to be 250,000 at the game if that was a minority.03

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:29 am - Dec 31, 2015


Happy New Years Eve everyone.   I have found it difficult to find anything new to add to the discussion.  We seem to be saying the same things over and over.  Like things never change.  Like sectatarian singing.  Like the SFA & the SPFL.  The media.  Directors, movers and shakers in football.

Totally off topic and unrelated.  But when you feel down.

The most moving story I read today was areas of Germany requesting locals not to let off fireworks this New Year in case it frightened recent immigrants from war torn places like Syria.  The sound of explosives etc.

Think of where Germany was a generation ago or so, the heinous crimes they committed against humanity, to this.  Take in a million refugees, don’t let off fireworks.  I have to say it gives me hope.

View Comment

M8DreamerPosted on1:20 am - Dec 31, 2015


As a Hibs supporter there are a number of observations resulting from the game played at Ibrox on Monday.
1. Hibs lost to the better team by producing a poor performance.
2. Fraser Fyvie deserves his 2 game ban for simulation of a “head knock”
3. Halliday should have received 2 red cards, one for the kick at Fyvie and one for the shoulder barge at Fyvie
4. Halliday’s appeal should be rejected by the SPFL and should be banned for violent conduct.
5. The offensive and illegal “party singing” by a minority of 40K TRFC supporters should be investigated by the 
    SPFL, SFA, and Police Scotland and appropriate action taken by all parties to ensure that these actions are 
   eradicated from Scottish Football for ever.
As we rapidly approach 2016, is there any possibility that Scottish Football Supporters will no longer have to be
subjected to this barrage of offensive singing from TRFC supporters at every game that they play.
I would like to think so, but know that the Scottish Football Authorities and Police Scotland will continue to do nothing with regards to this cancer in our game

View Comment

FisianiPosted on2:31 am - Dec 31, 2015


Correct me please if I err in my understanding.
1. Murray claimed that 5,000,000 was sent to Sports Direct 5 days ago. SD have not acknowledged receipt of such funds. I therefore assume that IF they came then they had onerous and unacceptable terms attached 
2.3B loans of 3,500,000 were due for repayment December 15. Today is Hogmanay.
3. Wages for the staff of 109 players and backroom staff were fully/partly paid last week.
4. Rangers only have 3 home revenue generating matches between now and 26th February.
5. Wages are due for January and February and there not funds to pay them. 
Does Scots Law allow companies to trade whilst insolvent?
What penalties apply to directors who allow comapies to trade whilst insolvent?
Mike Ashley has been quiet. Too quiet. 

View Comment

Methilhill StrollerPosted on6:05 am - Dec 31, 2015


Well as we move into another year the same issues remain.  A company trading while insolvent and without a credit line from a bank. Rules for one club and another set for the 41 others. Unacceptable singing and still no action by anyone in “authority”.
The whole game in Scotland is a sham (I could use many other words but would get cited for it even when correct) and until the SFA and SPL get their act together and apply the right rules without fear or favour there is no hope. I do not expect the SMSM to change but the TV companies might be able to have an effect if they refuse to cover matches until singing stops and the offending team gets no TV revenue either until common sense and civility returns.
However one is not holding ones breath and I suspect it will take an outside force or UEFA intervention to bring about change but will that be 2016, 2017, 2020 or……………. .
Here’s wishing everyone involved in SFM and related blogs a very prosperous New Year.
Scottish Football still needs a strong Arbroath and East Fife in 2016.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:07 am - Dec 31, 2015


Fisiani 31st December 2015 at 2:31 am #
=========================================

I suppose the crunch will come when wages/bills/taxes are due and no-one is able/willing to throw any more good money after bad to keep them afloat. As many have pointed out only the severest austerity will avoid continued loss making even if they reach the top league. They are clearly unwilling to cut their cloth to that extent. Are the same people simply willing to chuck in between £10-15M every year for no return? Are they actually able to? 

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:21 am - Dec 31, 2015


Wasn’t it the plan that if RIFC repaid Sports Direct their £5m, then all the securities would be cancelled and the Rangers Retail shares returned to Ibrox on this very day, 31 December?
I expect to hear nothing from the now very private Blue Room, but surely as a listed PLC, Sports Direct would have to make an announcement about these matters today, given the sums and the assets involved.
But only if the transaction have actually gone ahead- which I’m beginning to doubt.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:53 am - Dec 31, 2015


upthehoops 31st December 2015 at 7:07 am
==============================

Realistically I think they need to chuck in more like £7m – £10m per year.

However that would only really maintain the same levels, which aren’t really good enough to compete in the top half of the Premiership, and it doesn’t do anything to address the outstanding debts. Whether people wish to describe it as “external” or not, it is still debt. Though as discussed a rights issue or share issue might help address that.

If they can somehow extricate themselves from the deal with Mike Ashley, and set up a whole new system for producing, selling and distributing their merchandise then that might bring in another couple of million net.

Bottom line, the whole thing is predicated on keeping the show on the road until they can get into Europe, and realistically the CL group stages.

The Europa group stages would help a bit, but only in terms of potentially breaking even. Assuming they got a good turnout at the home games and decent sponsorship etc on the back of it.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:57 am - Dec 31, 2015


neepheid 31st December 2015 at 9:21 am
=============================

As of right now all of the charges over TRFC assets held by either MASH or SD remain outstanding according to Companies House.

There are no charges listed against RIFC.

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on10:03 am - Dec 31, 2015


@Neepheid  I suspect £5m is little more than petty cash to a company with the turnover of SD.  I doubt therefore what is a little more than a refreshing of the imprest float merits a stock exchange statement.  A press statement may be forthcoming particularly if it can refute RIFC assertions.  Obviously RRL as a Private Limited Company and RIFC as a non listed PLC are not subject to stock exchange disclosure either,

On the choir I caused a bit of a stramash on Twitter on Tuesday when I elicited a response from William Hill when I asked if they were still proud sponsors of Scottish football tv coverage.  They didn’t condone what happened and expected the appropriate authorities to take action.  They obviously have a more optimistic view as to what the SFA, SPL and Police Scotland will do over this.
I haven’t had responses from Nicola Sturgeon (who I asked to comment on the mass trespass against SNP legislation in her constituency), Ladbrokes( who I asked if they were happy being associated with the Chsmpionship given that showcase) and BTSport (on why the meek apology for the swearing but no condemnation of the singing).

I may have to start blocking people on Twitter 13 given the reaction

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on10:12 am - Dec 31, 2015


@Homunculus Europa league and Champions League Group stages prohibit the clubs own advertising other than the shirt sponsorship (and doesn’t MA/SD have an option on that) so there is little additional advertising revenue to be gained from them.  I don’t think the qualifying stages have such rigid enforcement but the tv audience reach is limited so I can’t see advertisers ponying up much for that.  The number one benefit of European football is the prize pot (mainly from UEFA’s sale of TV rights) with a little extra to be gained from match day attendances and the associated retail profits from merchandise and hospitality.  Do RIFC even own the rights to the latter as that could be another onerous contract?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:30 am - Dec 31, 2015


tykebhoy 31st December 2015 at 10:03 am #@Neepheid  I suspect £5m is little more than petty cash to a company with the turnover of SD.  I doubt therefore what is a little more than a refreshing of the imprest float merits a stock exchange statement.  A press statement may be forthcoming particularly if it can refute RIFC assertions.

You are 100% correct. I’ve just checked the SD site, and having trawled through their regulatory announcements and press releases, I can find nothing regarding the making of the £5m loan. Clearly the whole “Rangers” thing is just a trivial little sideshow to SD.
So I suppose we are relying on the likes of Chris “Union” Jack and Keith “Radar” Jackson asking a few awkward questions of the Ibrox Board to get to the truth. What’s the betting on that happening?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:32 am - Dec 31, 2015


tykebhoy 31st December 2015 at 10:12 am
=============================

I didn’t mean directly, as in advertising on the days of matches. More that a club playing in the group stages in Europe is more likely to have a higher profile and as such attract more sponsorship.

Celtic’s New Balance deal for example, with the logon on the seats, NB on the shirt etc is to do with the club’s profile and sponsors wishing to be associated with that.

With regards income, you seem to disregard the games. Speaking specifically about the Europa league, as the prize money etc is tiny compared to the CL. If you can sell a 3 game package to 40,000 people. Games you would not otherwise have. That is a decent amount of money. Add to it additional sales on the night and potentially higher sales of shirts etc and it does provide much needed income.

I did say “The Europa group stages would help a bit, but only in terms of potentially breaking even.”

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:41 am - Dec 31, 2015


 Don’t forget the oil tanker theory though Homuculus. 

They are currently making a loss being funded by what we’re agreed is essentially external debt that will need somehow repaying certainly in part if not in entirety.  On reaching the SPL(hell – well it was last night at pittodrie!) the argument goes that it will raise revenues thus stemming the losses removing the immediate funding requirement or, in theory terms, is akin to switching off the tankers engines that were powering you towards the abyss.  The problem is though that once you’ve reached the promised land of higher revenues where tv companies throw money at your teddy bear picnics you have to think about repaying the debts, whilst still trading to meet expectation levels.  If you start repaying then cash wise you’re no better off.  Again in metaphorical terms, you are reversing the engines of the tanker just to stop a continuing damaging drift.

(((The third element of the theory is what my lecturer described, very technically as “turning the damn thing around” inferring a need for profitable trading sufficient to trade AND make loan repayments but its probably not relevant here, well not for 30 years anyway!))

The key point being will the emergency investors, presumably the 3Bs, in the absence of sheik, accept a simple debt for equity swap as EJ suggests. That would circumvent the problem above but obviously requires, by default, the third element, or at least a perceived impression of the third element to support the share price and allow the original repayments to be effected that way, by sale of the reinvigorated shares.  There’s risky, there’s hellish risky and then there’s that plan.  In my opinion.          

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on10:42 am - Dec 31, 2015


tykebhoy 31st December 2015 at 10:12 am #@Homunculus Europa league and Champions League Group stages prohibit the clubs own advertising other than the shirt sponsorship (and doesn’t MA/SD have an option on that) so there is little additional advertising revenue to be gained from them.  I don’t think the qualifying stages have such rigid enforcement but the tv audience reach is limited so I can’t see advertisers ponying up much for that.  The number one benefit of European football is the prize pot (mainly from UEFA’s sale of TV rights) with a little extra to be gained from match day attendances and the associated retail profits from merchandise and hospitality.  Do RIFC even own the rights to the latter as that could be another onerous contract?
==========================================
If TRFC qualify for any sort of competition not covered by an existing TV deal, the Beeb, STV, BT Sport etc will be tripping over themselves to throw money at them. Every game will be covered no matter how irrelevant, no matter how unimportant the competition is.
Meanwhile the Scottish clubs qualifying for europe the last few years get next to no real coverage from our domestic broadcasters who whatsoever.
Most of the Aberdeen games for example were picked Premier Sports (for buttons no doubt) or by nobody at all. Making it very hard for fans to watch their teams playing abroad in Europe.
Which really sums up nicely the problem with Football in the Television era – big clubs are covered consistantly, growing their fanbase over period of years and decades all the while smaller clubs are largely ignored and their fanbase can only shrink over time.
Its a self fulfilling prophecy as the TV companies are falling over themselves to pump money into the richest clubs and the other 95% simply watch on in dismay.

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on10:53 am - Dec 31, 2015


@ Homuculus yes but isn’t the TRFC shirt deal tied up with RRL and I seem to remember an option on the shirt sponsors too. 

Yes 120k additional ticket sales would add circa £3-4m in the coffers if it could be achieved.  Did Celtic even achieve it in this year’s campaign?

As for additional merchandise sales over the season and on the nights yes its possible if the boycott is dropped/ignored but that is of little benefit to RIFC/TRFC as dividends are drip fed from RRL and profits are low because SD set the wholesale price RRL buy them for.

Yes I get that you said if they could somehow extricate themselves from the RRL deal but other than serving the notice that doesn’t appear possible at this time.

View Comment

Comments are closed.